If you ever wanted to read about fake druids vs. environmental activists, now's your chance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 2 years ago* (16 children)

Not paint, literally orange corn flour that'll wash off with the first rain. Stop spreading disinformation for big oil pls. Idk why they went for this instead of classical art, but acting like this is some terrible evil crime is exactly what oil companies want you to think, they want you to root against people protesting climate change, no matter how tiny their vandalism is in the grand scheme of things

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    The article says it came out of a spray can. So how am I spreading misinformation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

    Not misinformation, disinformation. You read the article, yet choose to act like this is comparable to spray paint or something else that won't immediately wash off. This is like getting indignant bc somebody threw a couple eggs at a great pyramid. It's stupid and irrelevant to climate change, but sharing articles where the title says they threw acid instead of eggs is just fucking wrong, and serves no purpose besides discrediting climate activism

    Edit actually this article says nothing about corn flour, sorry for accusing you of ignoring that. That's super shady and shitty on the Guardian's part, a detail that majorly changes how actually harmful this act was

    Double edit you're still acting like they threw actual paint, so nvm my apology. Stop being such a blatant oil shill

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    They posted the article with the headline completely unchanged. If you wanna be mad at someone, be mad at The Guardian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I am for sure, all the articles I've seen on this have called it paint and it's really disingenuous and frustrating. The way they describe it makes it sound like they took a can of paint and splashed it on the stones. I interpreted it that way at first and got pretty mad, imo there's no good environmental message that's sent by destroying the ruins of long dead civilizations. At least defacing classic European art can be seen as a protest against the colonialist attitudes that led to climate change, Idk how actually effective it is at forcing change but part of me gets some morbid satisfaction from it :3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Paint: a coloured substance which is spread over a surface and dries to leave a thin decorative or protective coating.

    So in this case the cornstarch is the paint. No misinformation at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    Nobody's first thought when they read "paint" is corn flour that easily washes off. Headlines written like this play these kinds of semantics games with their headlines to drive angry engagement, or even to push a political agenda sometimes. The Guardian seems to run articles critical of the oil industry fairly often so maybe this isn't sinister like that, I'd have to do more research on The Guardian and the article's author to get an idea

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -5 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    It's stone. Stone is full of cracks. It will get into those cracks and not wash off.

    Furthermore, environmentalists pissing people off in the middle of a religious ceremony does nothing to help with an environmental cause. That's the way PETA goes about doing things. Do you think they've been remotely effective?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
  • [+] [S] -6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    That's really not how things work. We know a lot about ancient foods specifically because they get stuck in cracks in tools and we can get them out and study them. The rain didn't get the tiny flecks of wheat out of the cracks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    "The rain didn't get the tiny flecks of wheat out of the cracks" Yet somehow it's clean. Why are you continuing to act like this is comparable to actual paint? You're whining about something that's literally not a deal in the slightest, you really should stop making free propaganda for oil companies

    slight wording edit at the start

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Maybe if you had given me that article before you started berating me for not knowing what I was talking about, I might have been educated on the subject.

    Are you really not able to talk to people without insulting them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 years ago

    My claim about ancient foods in stone tools is accurate. It is what I was basing my claim on. It's called residue analysis. I'm not sure why any research would have told me otherwise. Do you expect me to be a geologist?

    I admitted I was wrong in this case, but you apparently want me to somehow go back into the past and undo what I posted. Sorry, my time machine has been on the fritz lately.

    And if that's not what you want, exactly what do you want? Do I need to make a public apology? What?

  • source
  • parent