Climate activist Superglues himself to Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring

Homepage Forums Politics Climate activist Superglues himself to Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring

This topic contains 35 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)
  • Author
  • #45473



    It’s the property of the Mauritshuis (as it has been for over a century), which in turn is owned by the state (Netherlands). It likely spent very little of its history in the possession of the Vermeer family. While it is not the property of mankind in the literal sense of property law, the museum has a mission to preserve and share the works with the public. Furthermore, it is a significant cultural and historic artifact. Culture and history not being the property of any person or institution, in that sense the culture contribution of the work belongs to mankind even if the physical painting does not. That’s a big part of why the museum houses it, likely.

    First off, thank you for teaching me a new word. “Mauritshuis.”. Sounds better than “Mauritsians” which sounds more like “Martians.” 👽😁

    While I, as a Libertarian, think art production and curation should be a private endeavor instead of governmental, even that position wouldn’t justify destruction of art.

    Instead, there needs to be a peaceful transition of art from government to private hands with auctions open to all bidders. All bids on all items would start at a pro rata price sufficient to cover government debt and all ending bids above that price would be used to keep government out of debt. That would be a real masterpiece. 🎨🖌️

    No one’s life is for anyone’s disposal, and yet we have such bizarre phenomena such as sanctioned wars. We have revolutions that earn legitimacy on success. We have state violence. There are all sorts of ways killing is legitimized in society. Saying someone’s life isn’t for anyone else’s disposal makes a shockingly poor point for a species that somewhat habitually resolves (or attempts to resolve) conflict with killing.

    Well, someone has to put a foot down somewhere and I’ve done it against acts on all sides of The War On Terror, Iraq War II, Putin’s Russo-Ukrainian War, and now, with Eco-Wacko Nihilists.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum of punctuation and correction of spelling



    So here is Enco rationalising limits to freedom of expression (mostly reasonable ones I think) and yet doesn’t seem to have a problem with not limiting free speech when those words contribute towards inequality, terrible suffering of the marginalised and the brutal consequences of radical hate speech. Nice. Clearly it means: limits for things that have consequences you care about, and no limits for things that have terrible consequences but don’t really bother you that much.

    I addressed your concern about hate speech with the continuing story of the downfall of The Artist Formerly Known As Ye And Eternally Known As Shit.

    As Frederic Bastiat would have observed today, just because you deny “There Oughtta Be A Law against hate speech,” does not mean to do nothing.

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
    ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law



    Died for your freedom, fought for your freedom, fight for glory and putative patriotic slogans ad nauseum are utilized by politicians and dictators to rally the young and stupid to die for causes that are usually marginal or pretexts for unilateral aggression and utterly unjustified. Stupid people are indoctrinated and inflated until they pop and like fungible goods are manufactured and textured to replace the preceding widgets. The widgets act against their interest and are aligned with their programming.

    Meanwhile nobody and nothing happens to change the rat on the wheel, life is cheap and a few assholes are calling the shots and dictating the march of folly.

    I said it before. Might not repeat it. A world wide movement is perhaps the one semi-realistic possibility of altering the march of folly for the better. The internet has caused so much polarization and influences the widgets to such a degree that their programming has them primed for radicalization. So why not have the best and brightest combine their efforts and resources to oppose the most vile and untenable aspects of civilization. There is no reason to permit Putins and his ilk to be in the driver’s seat. In fact it is downright insane to rest so much power in one person. We needn’t examine history extensively to know what happens in dictatorships. Nobody but the dictators ought to support dictatorship. If nodoby supports or follows the dictator then the dictator is not going to dictate anything for the masses.

    Just a few basic measures that humans can expect wherever they may be. A few civil rights for all humans. A few universals. I am not expecting wild and radical measures to be adopted and be de rigueur. A few civil rights. Universal medical? naah….too radical and too much an imposition on the existing order. Ultimately if a first step is successful maybe…

    And definitely it ought to be required that the apex of government officials who vote for war must first fight and die before kids are sent to die. This fucking bullshit with old men being cavalier under the banner of patriotism to have their citizens die for no good reason must end. You are a hawk? A great big fat white person with a jelly belly and jowels and you are advocating some invasion for no good reason? Good you will fight some other politician to the death and it will be broadcast all over the world. Lets see how many wars there are? Once customs are established like that good luck getting em to fizzle. It is a reasonable demand and once precedent is set it will catch on everywhere.

    Meh…just continue the march of folly. Put up your feet. Make popcorn. little kernels with butter and salt in corn oil on a frying pan. Cuz we would rather stay the course. We’d rather be vindicated when the atrocities and war crimes corroborate our assessment of the evil fill in the blanks. We would rather have North Koreans living lives of quiet desperation. We would rather watch from afar with faint interest as one group of brown people liquidate another.



    Popcorn time.



    Oh, it is jowls. Not jowels. Either way it rhymes with bowels. Now for that popcorn..





    Of course, I didn’t mean that the Vermeer belongs to mankind in a property law sense. I guess you’re just very dense or pathologically literal. Our cultural heritage belongs to us in a very real sense and the evidence of it is important to be preserved to whatever degree we can.

    Everyone who beholds a painting can derive meaning and inspiration that can be shared and passed on, and in that it is a common cultural heritage. But the creation they behold is still a hard copy piece of property created and owned by a human being, who has the right to own it against any claims of modern-day Huns, Vandals, and Khanates.

    And talk about “pathologically dense,” Mister “Labor Theory of Value.”

    According to Marx’ Labor Theory of Value, Vermeer is an “exploiter” of his buyers and his works are just daubings on a canvas no different than used toilet tissue.

    As for tidal power, it has lots of great potential and we must investigate further…But nothing will get acomplished by snot-nosed destroyers Crazy-Gluing themselves to museum pieces or by holding to the long-refuted economics of megalomaniacs.




    Glad you’ve caught up to the rest of us about Putin in your Inspector Luger dissertation on the human condition. I’ll use the microwave for my popcorn. Quicker and less oil and splatter to risk a grease fire. That’ll help the solution. 🍿😋



    Enco, catchup w ya on Putin? What are you smoking and do you need orange juice?

    I was gonna tell ya how microwave popcorn is associated with cancer. Checked and the offending chemical in the bag has been removed but there is another chemical that causes popcorn lung that also has been removed. So you might get away with microwave popcorn but it just can’t touch the old fashioned pop it yourself in hot oil.



    The environmentalist left has a habit of overblowing environmental issues, summarizing them into global disasters happening very very soon unless we all make big changes to our daily lives. These apocalyptic predictions turn everyday Americans into environmental warriors at one extreme and environmental Karens at the other. Natali, the cohost of the Redacted interview with Dr. Lomborg, was one such Karen until she read his book.

    Al Gore has been making dire climate and environmental predictions for decades, and the “inconvenient truth” is that none of them have materialized. And yet, he goes on making apocalyptic prognostications. Maybe he’ll make an accurate prediction one of these days, but he’s old and is running out of time.

    The history of climate apocalypse is long and riddled with failed predictions. The article 50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50 lists 50 examples.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Unseen.


    Nothing like Joe Rogan to be part of a reliable source of information. Climate change is already disastrous in many quarters of the world and it is insane to claim otherwise. This ranges from now nearly uninhabitable island nations (rehoming an entire nation classifies as a disaster), tap water so toxic it sets on fire, numerous species going extinct every day, trillions in costs each year for a much higher level of natural disasters (economically this is disastrous and wasteful), millions of more deaths due to pollution (millions of deaths is a disaster under any circumstances), increasing desertification and climate related refugees. And that is now and just part of the story. And yes it will get a lot worse.

    No…the world will not be on fire tomorrow. Yes a few people go over the top. No…this isn’t a reason to deny things will get very bad. They will. But yes, the world isn’t taking this current disaster and worsening disaster remotely seriously enough and climate activists deserve praise, for the most part, for their efforts against a horrifically apathetic public. Especially in resource rich or resource hungry nations like America where climate change denial is so widespread.

    Humans seemed to have evolved to destroy themselves, even when they reach a minimal level of enlightenment, rationalism and a modicum of treating one another sort of okay and having a certain level of unknown peace. Why not destroy ourselves and pretend it isn’t happening…and demonise the few people brave enough to care and do something about it?

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Davis.


    No…the world will not be on fire tomorrow. Yes a few people go over the top.

    I suppose it’s the ‘a few people go over the top’ I have the most difficulty evaluating. I don’t really encounter this Chicken Little version of eco-warriors that supposedly exists out there. Could be because the issue is greatly overstated, or it could be due to my sheltered existence. Low scientific literacy is a common issue in general and it does lead to inaccurate or outright false claims spreading easily.

    I will say this isn’t a left/ right divide though. Sometimes there is a tendency to highlight the most disastrous possibilities likely because without a sense of urgency, it seems likely nothing will change. Or because some people are hyper-anxious about the sky falling any second now. But for AGW-deniers or people caught in the middle ground, there is a tendency to distort scientific claims, label the distortions as predictions, then point to those predictions as either scientists flip-flopping, or just having failed. The classic example is the notion that scientists in the 70s were predicting an immanent ice age and then at some point they all flipped to global warming. That’s quite far from the truth, but the falsehood is useful in undermining climate science within the general population.



    If you look at real data instead of the Joe Rogan Monkey Show, you would have seen that predictions going way back to the 7o’s were correct.

    It is a problem that is too slow to humanly comprehend (kinda like explaining evolution to a creationist) and the sure answer to the problem will be either the human death toll or science- based solutions or both (as I predict).




    Joe Rogan is one of the best interviewers out there despite being a comedian and ex-wrestler. He’s very smart. Using a Socratic approach, he has deconstructed many a blowhard, Jordan Peterson included. You rattled off a litany of problems (the flaming tap water relates to fracking, but fracking problems are much more under control). Most of those problems, the ones which are actual problems, will have to be solved by science not social engineering.

    A lot of the science behind apocalyptic climate thinking is, simply put, junk science:

    Lomborg, in that piece above, points out several undeniable truths 1) the usual prescriptions for solving climate issues are done on the backs of poor and disadvantaged people, putting improving their lot on hold while the world stops everything to forestall a disaster that probably won’t arrive before 2100; 2) solutions involving taking valued aspects of life away from the public won’t be tolerated; 3) as opposed to depriving people, the solution will have to be through innovation, which is where we should be focusing.

    I don’t think any of those points are deniable, though you’re invited to try.



    It is a problem that is too slow to humanly comprehend (kinda like explaining evolution to a creationist)

    We’re also pretty good at preserving bubbles. Even with the current impacts of global warming, many of us are pretty sheltered from feeling the weight of what’s already changing. My concern is even with a potential acceleration of climate-related issues, we’ll normalize them too quickly.

    and the sure answer to the problem will be either the human death toll or science- based solutions or both (as I predict).

    I suspect both as well.




    I can show you hundreds of charts that would you show the earth is flat. That’s not the scientific consensus is it? You seem to gravitate towards the lone wolve contrarians. Guess what? They are wrong! If scientific consensus of 99:1 means nothing to you, how are you ever gonna make the best decisions. This is very much like the anti-vaxxers that died drowning in their lung juices as they begged for the vaccine. Too late loser, you did your own Joe Rogan research.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.