• Elise@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I didn’t imply it, I explicitly started with that.

    You might not believe that all attention is good attention, but can you imagine that some people do see it that way? In fact I’ve seen a docu about a photographer who believes disruption is the only way to get people’s attention.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Then what are the two evils you’re referring to, and which action are you referring to with picking the lesser evil?

      • Elise@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        They are climate activists so I imagine climate change is one of the two evils. The other one is potentially upsetting the lichens and people’s feelings.

        You might not agree with their decision, but I don’t find it irrational.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Right, that’s what I thought you were referring to, and responded to. Ruining stonehenge versus the climate. Or vandalism generally versus the climate.

          We’re not picking between these things. They’re independent variables.

          • Elise@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Disturbing the lichens on stonehenge vs generating awareness is clearly connected, since it grabbed our attention without millions of euros of advertising.