• Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well good! It’d be fucking travesty to permanently damage a world heritage

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes and climate change, also caused by people, is going to more than damage a whole shitload of world heritage.

      • Gigasser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I wonder if increased heat or any other manner of fucked up weather patterns could damage Stonehenge?

      • send_me_your_mommy_milkers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Demolising heritage is what IS did in the levant…

        They’d better paint the Chinese Wall since that country can change alot more than the west.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh shit, was it that easy to fix climate change? To vandalize heritage sites was all it took?

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            Well I’d argue it does nothing. In fact, it probably is counter productive, so instead of nothing it does the opposite

        • skulblaka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ah yes, it’s holding back the massive sweeping wave of change currently going on to fix climate change.

          No, don’t be a dumbass. It’s raising awareness, because it’s obvious nobody is giving a shit about this really fucking massive problem that is directly on our doorstep. Painting Stonehenge isn’t going to accomplish anything except be a nuisance, but being a nuisance is how you compel people to get shit done non-violently. MLK and his sit-ins pushed civil rights forward by being a nuisance. Gandhi pushed Britain out of India by being a nuisance. If you accept the status quo, the status quo will remain. You have to get out and make noise and attract a following if you want the folks in charge to pay attention to your existence.

          Trust me, you want them painting on Stonehenge for attention. This is the non-violent option. When this is ignored long enough, the non-violent option will be shelved and that’s when people will suddenly start paying attention.

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” - John F. Kennedy, 1962

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            You would accomplish much more by voting and getting two people under 30 years old to do the same.

            Also I missed the part of the civil rights movement where they blocked ambulances and threw paint on stone hedge.