• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    “Picking” the lesser of two evils implies there is some kind of exclusive relationship between climate change and vandalism. As if this action had some kind of effect that counters climate change.

    But it doesn’t.

    • Elise@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I didn’t imply it, I explicitly started with that.

      You might not believe that all attention is good attention, but can you imagine that some people do see it that way? In fact I’ve seen a docu about a photographer who believes disruption is the only way to get people’s attention.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Then what are the two evils you’re referring to, and which action are you referring to with picking the lesser evil?

        • Elise@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          They are climate activists so I imagine climate change is one of the two evils. The other one is potentially upsetting the lichens and people’s feelings.

          You might not agree with their decision, but I don’t find it irrational.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Right, that’s what I thought you were referring to, and responded to. Ruining stonehenge versus the climate. Or vandalism generally versus the climate.

            We’re not picking between these things. They’re independent variables.

            • Elise@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Disturbing the lichens on stonehenge vs generating awareness is clearly connected, since it grabbed our attention without millions of euros of advertising.