That’s not my point. Everytime they deface something, we start talking again about stopping oil production. Sure we talk about it without that push too. But this means we start talking about it more.

Peaceful protests have not worked, disruptive protests have been widely villified and the protestors jailed for very long sentences. If you are facing 2-3 years for holding up a banner or throwing some paint seems like criminal damage of a fossil fuel facility isn't likely to net more years. As many have said in the past governments ignore peaceful protests at their peril, because once its clear that doesn't work they become not peaceful.

Assuming there's no collateral damage to speak of, I'd argue it would be an act of self-defence for the benefit of all of us. In principle, I'd struggle to find reason to be upset by it.

In Germany, protestors repeatedly shut oil pipelines off and locked themselves to the valves to prevent their reopening, blocking oil flow for several hours every time. I consume a lot of news, both mainstream and in my leftist bubble. That story barely registered anywhere.

The exact same protestors threw mashed potatoes at a Van Gogh. They were the main headline for over a week.

Hell, some guy set himself on fire a few years ago and it was in the news for half a day.

The media blackout is real, but it's not a huge conspiracy. It's just that the media reports on what gets them clicks, and nothing generates clicks like outrage. That's why so much reporting also conveniently forgets to mention that the paintings are protected by plexiglass and nothing ever got damaged. But all the controversy gets people talking, and some people will inevitably question what drives people to do something like that. That is the real objective. If they wanted to be popular, they'd to greenwashed recycling videos on YouTube instead, or whatever else is hip with the neoliberal peddlers of personal responsibility at the moment.

By 'media blackout' they mean 'it was a blip on the radar like this is, but this is NOW and thus relevant and important'

I remember when people would throw animal blood on rich fucks going to gala events who were wearing fur.

YouTube provides transcripts.

Wow. I am behind the times. I'll look through it then.

"No art on a dead planet" is a braindead justification and does not in any way outline how vandalism of art is supposed to translate into climate activism, while the four criteria outlined for activism are valid but in no way provide a special justification for vandalism of cultural artifacts, which has a significantly greater backlash from the exact kind of educated people most likely to get involved in climate activism, and very little disruptive potential.

"I understand that we're pissing people off but there's no other way to get attention" and "Negative attention is good attention, because maybe it will cause people to become positively engaged with the cause" are not particularly compelling rebuttals in the critics section.

"JSO was central in setting the 2024 Labour agenda" is utterly deluded, while all the cited actions by their sister organizations in Europe are much more traditional instances of civil disobedience that have long-proven track records and a clear and logical progression of action-to-influence.

This really reinforces my view that JSO are terribly naive and have no real idea on how their actions will seriously lead to mass change of opinions on climate change.