• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    More like “you see your honor, he was behind a 10-foot-thick wall of lead, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was safe all along!”

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      “The painting itself was unharmed, but the 17th-century frame sustained some damage after the soup acted as paint stripper on the delicate surface.”

      So climate activists’ official position is to target the frames of these paintings, as they see them as important enough to piss people off but not important enough to preserve?

      Time to lock originals away from the public forever.

      • mmcintyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Way to solve one of the most pressing issues of our day. Just great work, man. The planet really isn’t that important when compared to some 17th century art. That’s where we really need to focus our preservation and conservation efforts!

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s where we’re going to focus the problem solving, when that’s how you choose to stir shit up. We’re going to focus on preventing climate activists from destroying shit, and we’re going to talk about how to punish them.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Yes exactly! The judiciary is infallible and so that’s exactly why the SCOTUS is the least fallible institution there is.