Right? Raw shock value is only useful when something isn’t well known. Everyone knows about climate change and has a position.

Great, use “shock value”: but make a worthwhile statement with it too. The goal is to force people to confront an issue, not effortlessly write it off as a childish tantrum and ignore it.

It’s a dumb action, and this is from someone that supports direct action. How people are talking about an action is critical: the context matters.

The first thing people are going to ask is “why did you do this?” and the answer needs to make sense. Throwing soup on an oil exec, painting their office, etc – something sparks a conversation in a way you can exploit to further the cause.

“Vandalizing” a famous piece of art not even tangentially related to your cause is just going to make people think you’re an asshole and shuts down that potential for a productive discussion.

I wouldn’t want to live close to a dispensary, there’s almost always a “stench”.

I pass by dispensarys all the time and never notice a smell. The only places that smell are those that allow smoking on premise – which with our state’s indoor smoking laws are very rare.

It’s no different than tobacco, really.

… you do realize lemmy users skew older, and it’s not just kids saying “eat the rich”, right?

I understand that quote, but these days it’s a dumb one. Gone are the days of “settling down” into a bubble once you hit 30.

If they use nuclear weapons, it will end in one of two ways.

1. Escalation to full scale nuclear exchange. Putin dies or has to live in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust.

2. The rest of the world saying “that’s enough”. Nobody in power wants using nukes to be normalized. It’s so profoundly destabilizing to the status quo that everyone sees it as a threat given it will inevitably lead to escalation. Every intelligence agency in the world will be making phone calls, offering sweet deals, and promising support to unhappy, powerful people in Russia to deal with the “Putin” problem. Ideological enemies will work together to eliminate this threat to their stability.

I’d point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for the USA, or Afghanistan vs the USSR. Those were tiny, poorly equipped countries fighting against the most powerful militaries in the world. Said small countries eventually started receiving materiel, training, and intelligence support from powerful allies.

They didn’t have to kill all their enemies or push them off the land they held – they weren’t capable of it. They won by just dragging the conflict on and making it as expensive and difficult as possible for the other side. A common path to victory is the enemy saying “this fight is no longer politically/economically worth it” and withdrawing.