JustARaccoon

So weird - what if you're moving the goal post because you can't admit that you realise I'm right? There's no way to argue back against such an argument. Try to not just assume things about people's subconscious, it can very much be turned back without a possible retort.

You're being so pedantic, we both know what the article type is trying to do, it's not aimed at people with the faculties to understand or research if the painting was actually damaged. People see the article as if they actually damaged the painting (because duh throwing soup at a textile material damages it usually)

But the painting is safe, that's literally the point, relying on the media going for the shock factor while not actually damaging anything. Yet the law is pursuing it as if they did damage the painting, putting them in jail for years, which is not a proportional punishment for the crime of vandalising a painting frame.

Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.

My brother in Christ it's your analogy

And we never will if we don't start making progress on it, it'll always be unfeasible because the powers that be don't start making changes unless it's doable within one election cycle. Just Stop Oil isn't asking for immediate stopping of oil, just moving the deadline to 2030, which means there's a few years to realistically invest in other forms of energy generation like nuclear, green energy, and other ways.

So imagine in retort of a joke your friend makes you lightly backslap them in the chest or something, these headlines would report it as you punching your friend. Is that accurate? It doesn't really paint an accurate picture does it?

Only in this case it would be shooting deliberately at the vest of a person covered from head to toe in said vest with a caliber that they'd know couldn't penetrate it. There was no chance for it to penetrate or go around the protective layer, nor was it intended to be so, so that's not quite accurate.

Relevant

Because then it's a violent protest and you won't hear the end of it from the conservatives. It's been p much proven that any action is better than no action, and them sitting outside a single persons home would be inefficient and also potentially harassment.

Also it doesn't help that reporting around this stuff conveniently misses the parts where all of their actions are easily reversible and non damaging. If anything it shows how corrupt the media empire is

Well maybe not on paper but they did leverage it a lot when questioned

I'm confused, how can a company that's gained numerous advantages from being non-profit just switch to a for-profit model? Weren't a lot of the advantages (like access to data and scraping) given with the stipulation that it's for a non-profit? This sounds like it should be illegal to my brain

It won't block it yes but it will diminish the amount of people doing it which is the point