Three individuals targeted National Gallery paintings an hour after Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland were jailed for similar attack in 2022
Climate activists have thrown tomato soup over two Sunflowers paintings by Vincent van Gogh, just an hour after two others were jailed for a similar protest action in 2022.
Three supporters of Just Stop Oil walked into the National Gallery in London, where an exhibition of Van Gogh’s collected works is on display, at 2.30pm on Friday afternoon, and threw Heinz soup over Sunflowers 1889 and Sunflowers 1888.
The latter was the same work targeted by Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland in 2022. That pair are now among 25 supporters of Just Stop Oil in jail for climate protests.
I dunno why these newspapers constantly print these phony headlines… Oh wait. It’s the clickbait and propaganda obviously.
Terrorist shoots at someone’s bulletproof vest:
“Derp, they didn’t shoot the man just the vest! Clickbait!”
Only in this case it would be shooting deliberately at the vest of a person covered from head to toe in said vest with a caliber that they’d know couldn’t penetrate it. There was no chance for it to penetrate or go around the protective layer, nor was it intended to be so, so that’s not quite accurate.
Which is still very much dumb thing to do.
My brother in Christ it’s your analogy
Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you’re calling this click bait and propaganda? I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.
So imagine in retort of a joke your friend makes you lightly backslap them in the chest or something, these headlines would report it as you punching your friend. Is that accurate? It doesn’t really paint an accurate picture does it?
No. But I don’t believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.
Let me try this way. If it’s no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet…why didn’t they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?
The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.
You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.
But the painting is safe, that’s literally the point, relying on the media going for the shock factor while not actually damaging anything. Yet the law is pursuing it as if they did damage the painting, putting them in jail for years, which is not a proportional punishment for the crime of vandalising a painting frame.
Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.
Yeah, the shock factor of targeting the painting which is why a headline that says they threw soup at the painting is not click bait. It’s literally exactly what they explicitly and intentionally did. You recognize that, so why argue the opposite?
I said nothing about the law. We are talking about a headline. I absolutely agree that, because they knew they wouldn’t destroy the piece so there was no real intent to destroy it, jail time makes no sense.
If anyone missed the point, it’s you. If you are arguing that they intentionally argued targeted the painting for shock value, but at the same time it’s misleading the say that they threw soup at the painting, then that requires abandoning logic. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the argument.
You’re being so pedantic, we both know what the article type is trying to do, it’s not aimed at people with the faculties to understand or research if the painting was actually damaged. People see the article as if they actually damaged the painting (because duh throwing soup at a textile material damages it usually)
The poster said it was a click bait headline because it should have said they threw soup at plastic. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out, as you agree, that the whole point was the shock factor of throwing it at the painting.
Shifting the debate to some more nebulous “what the article is trying to do” is moving the goal posts because you can’t just admit that you realize I’m right.
So weird - what if you’re moving the goal post because you can’t admit that you realise I’m right? There’s no way to argue back against such an argument. Try to not just assume things about people’s subconscious, it can very much be turned back without a possible retort.
deleted by creator