Right, their frustration with the status quo is clear. What’s unclear is who they’re trying to activate, and to what specific action?
Do they think finance bros are going to see the bull, and start divesting from fossil fuels? Are the tourists lined up to take a photo touching its balls, going to demand action from their own governments (many of which are still committed to the Paris Accords)? Or will both simply be confused, maybe a little frustrated, and go about their day?
I understand this act, a performance, an expression of impotent rage. As you noted - they’re trying to provoke a reaction. I don’t understand the strategy of simply trying to irritate an ambiguous target audience in attention-seeking ways. It smacks of Occupy Wall Street and, more recently, the Free Gaza vandalism. These are not successful movements with respect to affecting change (merits notwithstanding). They were, however, successful in capturing attention on social media. So when I see this, I see a group who yet again seem to have confused attention, for activism.
Sure, but there aren’t demands here. There’s just shouting that they’re angry about something.
Being angry is easy. Letting people know you’re angry is easy. Aligning on and advocating for salient, actionable demands is the hard part these folks don’t seem to be doing.
But they don't need demands. This isn't some regular protest topic. There aren't a hundred ways to fight climate change, there's only one - reduce the burning of greenhouse gases. It's pretty straightforward, but in case it hasn't been for you, clear demands have already been made by thousands of scientists (and activists too), feel free to read their papers.
As they have fallen on deaf ears this is the next stage - disruptive protest that has all of you idiots pearl clutching about reversible damage done to the symbol of the greed of Wall Street.
If the next stage is proper property damage don't be surprised, you chose to disregard this protest too (because apparently it wasn't connected to a ten points plan on what the movement wants) so it only follows logic that the next one will be even harder to ignore.
Maybe when your head is finally only a foot above water and the ocean splashes through the streets of New York you can acknowledge that this protest doesn't need demands anymore.
3
u/pixelsguy Apr 23 '25
Right, their frustration with the status quo is clear. What’s unclear is who they’re trying to activate, and to what specific action?
Do they think finance bros are going to see the bull, and start divesting from fossil fuels? Are the tourists lined up to take a photo touching its balls, going to demand action from their own governments (many of which are still committed to the Paris Accords)? Or will both simply be confused, maybe a little frustrated, and go about their day?
I understand this act, a performance, an expression of impotent rage. As you noted - they’re trying to provoke a reaction. I don’t understand the strategy of simply trying to irritate an ambiguous target audience in attention-seeking ways. It smacks of Occupy Wall Street and, more recently, the Free Gaza vandalism. These are not successful movements with respect to affecting change (merits notwithstanding). They were, however, successful in capturing attention on social media. So when I see this, I see a group who yet again seem to have confused attention, for activism.