Cethin

That should always be the response. It keeps it consistent. It should never be “there are no traps” because it’s a comment on their characters knowledge, which is just that they can’t see any. There’s never a guarantee.

Not the guy you’re talking to, but my opinion is the only good shows spend time building their world like that. It shows the world is complex and matters. If you blow past that then your world must either be identical to ours or it isn’t interesting.

My favorite show I think is Battlestar: Galactica. You have to watch a entire miniseries before it gets into the swing of things; when the episodes start. The viewer needs to be immersed in the world to be able to understand the stakes and actually care about what’s happening, for any world anyone creates that isn’t our own.

For sure, but you have to get through a lot of Twilight stuff for it. I understand that was just the tool used to carry the message, but it was a large part of the video.

This video is super long, and if you don’t care about Twilight you probably won’t like it. I made it like halfway through before I stopped caring. Some parts of it are still interesting, but most of it is just Twilight stuff.

(In case this matters, which I doubt it does but in the sake of honesty, I’m a straight cis man who generally likes her content.)

Yeah, this is definitely how you maintain order. You piss people off by forcing them to learn how to fight. Great plan. There’s no way this backfires on them.

You have no proof of the claim that this was by design.

The proof is they hit the fucking Mona Lisa. Everyone knows there’s glass in front. Even if they somehow didn’t know, they would by the time the get up to it and could have changed plans. It wasn’t an accident that glass was “in the way” of the painting. How could anyone think it was?

You think articles are going to be the big thing but social media is not.

Everyone writes social media posts, and they go no where. I’m not saying this will cause anything to happen, but it got a lot more eyeballs on it than some tweet would, which would at best be seen by the people looking for that anyway.

I foresee these places putting up a replica of the paintings and not the paintings anymore. Because there’s far too much risk.

Lol. What would be the point of going then. The pictures are public domain and viewable online. They only exist to display the real thing, and again nothing was damaged. Hell, the Mona Lisa has been stolen before and it’s still on public display. Why would a little soup on the glass case make them change?

You seem to not have thought about this at all. Your thinking with emotion or something and not reason. Social media posts don’t get anyone’s attention outside the group that already agrees, these people caused no damage, and museums don’t exist for replicas. Calm down.

Not all evil is just about personal gain. That’s way oversimplified. Sure, some is and that can be part of it, but sometimes it isn’t.

Bhaal is the lord of murder, and not usually doing it to gain anything. “Bhaal only lived to hunt and kill, the presence of the living instilling in him an overpowering desire for death and destruction. He was at all times a cruel, violent and hateful being, though his behavior could vary from cold and calculating ruthlessness to a savage thirst for blood.”

Evil is basically desire to do harm or to have power over others (which I’d argue is the same thing). Tyranny is evil because it removes others ability to do what they want, which is harmful. It’s about a desire. A desire to have power over someone, or to harm someone, or to kill someone, etc. Gaining power over someone isn’t the disregard for consequences, it is regarding them and choosing tyranny.

However, good actions also often do this. You kill bad people, imprison criminals, etc. It’s good because you were trying to help/protect someone. Not good would be anything else, which both neutral and evil have to fit in there somewhere. Neutral must be without regard, and evil must be with regard and intent to do the opposite. If not, what is neutral or evil if it’s not those?

I don’t see where my argument has anything contingent on damage not being done. Your argument was contingent on damage being done however, and none (besides a little cleanup) was done. If I said protest was only valid if it doesn’t do damage, then I’d need to consider your argument, but it isn’t. I’m perfectly OK with some amount of damage and never said otherwise.

You’re the one that has to reconsider their position as it was based on damage where there was none. Has your argument changed?

I agree with everything in your post except them being assholes. What part of this makes them assholes? Nothing was damaged and no one was hurt or inconvenienced, except for maybe a few museum employees who had to clean up a mess. The whole setup for viewing the Mona Lisa causes far more inconvenience than these people did. It’s a tiny painting in a packed room. You can’t really see it anyway.

A can of soup dude. The trashcans at the Louvre have far more food waste than a can of soup. What larger good can be done with a single can of soup?

A can of soup isn’t going to change anything. What kind of an argument is that? With that logic, any protest uses energy, so all of it is invalid if it’s about any form of energy or food usage. That’s not a valid argument.

No, it’s societies fault for not doing what we need to do. It’s the medias fault that this gathers attention and makes it an effective and harmless method of protest.

Dude, these types of people are not working for the democratic party. The democratic party doesn’t want to change anything, which is the issue. That’s why other methods have to be used. Asking nicely and voting doesn’t cause the change that needs to happen. Sure, do it also, but don’t stop where the ruling class tells you to stop.

This was a peaceful protest! No one was hurt and nothing was damaged. It also reached a lot more people than a post on social media would and way more than a picket would.

You think they don’t do these other things because you don’t hear about them. That’s why they do this. The other methods no one hears about.

No change has ever happened from purely peaceful protest. If that were effective it wouldn’t be legal.

What did they break?

Saying that the painting wasn’t damaged is very shortsighted. What if these places determine that the risk just isn’t worth it. Sure it’s behind bulletproof Glass but not everything is. I really hate it when people assume that the repercussions for their actions are either immediate or they won’t exist.

They specifically target painting that are behind glass. It wasn’t a mistake that they didn’t damage the painting. It was by design. If it weren’t protected by glass they almost certainly would choose one that is. The point isn’t to cause damage. It’s to get articles written about them. Social media posts won’t get anyone’s attention.

They’re complaining about food security, but regardless it doesn’t invalidate their message.

They aren’t even protesting about (necessarily) environmentalism! It’s crazy the number of people outraged that soup was thrown on glass that was in front of a painting and didn’t even get to the part where it says this is about food security.

Because they didn’t want to cause damage. The target was glass, not the painting.

They didn’t throw soup on a painting. They threw soup on glass that was in front of a painting. No paintings were harmed in this protest.