Just Stop Oil activists jailed for throwing soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers

Okay, and who hasn't heard of climate change by now? Who has been living under a rock that doesn't know that Big Oil is bad?

"Create a higher mass," ffs... You sound like a Christian justifying buying those "He Gets Us" Superbowl ads, as if nobody in the US has heard of Jesus before.

And no real harm? I guess we can just destroy history and artifacts, because who needs to learn from that shit amirite?

Is there any data in here to suggest what the actual effect is on level of support, rather than people self-reporting their change in level of support?

Because here's one reading of the data, which I think is entirely reasonable:

1. The people who report "no effect" on their support, which at 40% is the largest single group, already support efforts to address climate change, and this makes no difference to them.
2. The people who report a decrease, great or otherwise, of their support, are just conservatives who know that the talking point is "this action decreases support" and so they're answering in a way that supports that narrative. In reality, these people were already opposed to any meaningful action in the first place, and this didn't change their actual level of support.

Without further analysis, this survey doesn't say much. Even the questions dishonestly imply that actual damage is being done to art, when that generally isn't the case.

Again, that survey comes up against a tide of jury nullifications, which would indicate a very strong material support for these activists and the cause they represent. The courts are trying to penalise people for mentioning climate change in their defense, which has got to blow back in their faces eventually. In fact these court cases may be an important part of swinging public sentiment against the government and towards radical action to change things.

Who gives a fuck about "disapproval?" "Disapproval" is entirely irrelevant -- actually no, more than that: "disapproval" is what reactionaries do when they can't ignore you anymore, which is a sign that you're winning.

Change like this doesn't happen because the Powers that Be "approve" of the protestors. Change like this happens because the protestors have caused enough disruption to force the Powers that Be to capitulate.

I've given some pretty compelling evidence that public support for these activists is extremely high, and in response you have... some flatulence.

Here, I'll respond in the way you did:

But it is moving the needle, it totally is!

See? I can say things too.

No, don't just tell me the harm you reckon is happening, demonstrate it.

You want to claim some harm is happening, then show your working.

Even a single nullification is incredibly rare, but it's happening enough that the government is making efforts to stamp out discussion of jury nullification.

We all know what the Streisand Effect is, so the logical result here is that more and more people will hear about the practice, more people will do it, and the public and those in power will get the message - you can't weaponise the legal system against us anymore.

It might even get to the point that they're afraid to prosecute because they don't want more nullifications to happen.

Then what? What do the people in power do when they discover that they can no do that? They start to be afraid of what else people might nullify. What about actual violent actions, would people get a free pass then? How willing would they be to throw the cops against people when those people are starting to wake up to the fact that we outnumber them, and we don't have to convict people if we don't want to?

When they're afraid of that, you might start to see action. Or you might see more violent repression, at which point who knows what the next step will be, but it's better than sitting around waiting for committees to decide that action must be taken which will then be ignored by those in power.

And we get ignorant people and despots because people in power use propaganda to miseducate the public, not because art galleries close.

I could throw soup on a painting,

Yes, evidently they managed to do it

or I could spray paint a billionaire's mansion.

You'd get arrested before ever reaching the wall.

I could paint Stonehenge,

Yes, evidently

or I could sue the polluters.

In the court the polluters have stacked themselves? Let me know how that goes. The polluters have more money and lawyers than you.

The people deciding the laws are bought.

I could deface historical artifacts,

Yes

or I could lobby a politician.

What with all the millions you just have laying around? Lol get real.

I suggest you introspect as to why the potential (or even actual) damage of artifacts makes you so angry. Why don't all the artifacts that were lost to time make you angry as well? I understand feeling disappointed if one ever gets destroyed, but you seem much more agitated than that. That anger can be easily manipulated by your environment to make you do things against your self interest.

They don't do it to become popular. They want to throw a wrench in the works to wake people up.