I agree with ya, but it’s Jefferson Davis

I think this improved the painting. We have tons of paintings of rich white dudes, we don't need to preserve them all. And the damage to this painting adds depth and meaning to an otherwise unremarkable piece.

We destroy art daily. Consider all the yiff porn that's been made over the years.

Why should I respect a painting of a racist asshole more than I respect the effort that went into producing pornography that at least made some innocent people happy while not glorifying genocide?

This painting is there because that guy was rich and donated money to Cambridge. That's it. Is not even that old (1917). It has no significant historical value any more than a portrait of your town's Mayor from the same period has.

And frankly, I'd care more about pho tears if I didn't know about the Anne Frank memorial in my city, that is yearly desecrated (sometimes multiple times in a year) by Nazi shitheads. Yet have you heard about that? No? I wonder why. Why can a memorial of a Holocaust victim get vandalized without a peep yet when a genociders painting is destroyed art is precious?

Briahna is saying a counter to that way of thinking, due to the genocide that is happening.

What is more important, property or to do anything possible to help stop the killling.

Briahna then states the following is what is chosen:

Property over human life, every time.

Here is what Ben is replying to:

Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.

Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain's support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.

Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14

Probably graffiti?