[kcplate]

They are smart enough to recognize obvious sarcasm…and as such they wouldn’t take it literally but instead would get my underlying message that defacing priceless art might be counterproductive to motivating people support your cause, but instead might have an opposite effect.

[ruined]

so you actually approve of their goals?

are you happy with their recent achieved policy goal, blocking new drilling permits? if yes, perhaps your frustration is misplaced. notably, no art was actually defaced, so if that's your point of contention, it's all good.

can you identify or share some more effective tactics?

it seems to me that espousing an opposing position is likely less effective than almost any explicitly supportive tactic, so please be careful with that.

[kcplate]

I don’t approve of any goals by any organization that choose tactics that involve vandalism and damage to anything.

Additionally tactics that result in anyone not directly affiliated with the targets of the org being intentionally inconvenienced through traffic stoppage or other public disruption techniques.

Further I don’t believe that an energy policy that doesn’t at least partially rely on petroleum resources for decades to come is an ignorant position to take and by attempting to force a direction that is doomed to fail through these awful tactics will do more harm than good.

So no…in no way to I approve of their goals and I hope their tactics create a backlash that has a domino effect of causing their cause to fail.

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/22/proteste...