• Buffalox
    1203 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    I think it’s a bit unfair they call it just “paint” when it was merely cornstarch that would wash off by itself.
    There’s a huge difference in the degree of vandalism if it’s something that wash off by itself.

    • glimse
      453 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      How and what will these crazy activists vandalize next? Shining a flashlight at the pyramids?!

    • spaduf
      223 months ago
      edit-2
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      This is by design and most people fell for it entirely. Even the second highest content in this thread is carrying water for big oil.

    • Juniper (she/her) 🫐
      143 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      It’s possible. And I think it’s likely. That the activists wanted this exact news cycle, where they falsely report that there is damage, gaining widespread coverage, and drawing attention their way, only for people to later learn that it was temporary and grow to respect the act.

      • CethinEnglish
        83 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Possibly. I’d imagine the vast majority of people don’t see the followup that there wasn’t damage, here, or the Mona Lisa, or the other events. The goal was outrage coverage for sure, and without causing damage so anyone who actually cares is fine with it. The media will just call it paint, and now that the potential for damage is clear they’ll stop talking about it.

    • ameancow
      103 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Media uses language like this on purpose, most of their copy comes from single-sources and everyone on every news station is repeating the same rhetoric. They did this with the soup/painting incident as well, making it seem like the protestors ruined priceless artifacts instead of spilling harmless food products on a sheet of plexiglass.

    • Jimmybander
      33 months ago
      link

      Paint washes off also given enough time.