Destruction, Rationalized

Over the past couple of days, some kids threw tomato soup on a Van Gogh (yes, it was covered in glass, but that doesn’t make this better) and glued their hands to a wall, while other kids poured milk over the floor at Marks and Spencer. The former was to “protest” climate change, while the latter had something to do with animals. There are videos floating around of both, but to the extent promoting themselves as the heroes of the woke is the purpose, I decline to post them here.

Both acts were met with outrage by sane people. The initial reaction was to be shocked, not just be the utter stupidity of the acts, by the flagrant narcissism, but also by the counterproductive nature of angering people who would share concern for the cause, but will not find destruction of unrelated objects of beauty and importance, or a floor to be cleaned by the lowest paid workers for the arrogance of little pissants with low self-esteem to be the answer. After all, who would possibly endorse such conduct?

But what about the condemnation, the disgust, of so many about this unfathomably moronic acts of harm?

This is a recipe for rationalizing anything, not unlike those who believed Trump’s baseless claim that the election was rigged or any other insane conspiracy theory. If people approve of your protest, then it demonstrates its effectiveness for the cause. And if people disapprove of the protest, then it proves that you have broken through their the barrier preventing the lemmings from being able to hide in the status quo and ignore the harsh reality of catastrophe.

See how that works?

This, of course, is argumentum ad Kafka, the Kafka trap of heads I win, tails you lose. If you’re accused of being a racist and admit it, you’re a racist. If you deny it, then you’re totally a racist, since only a racist would deny being a racist. No matter what happens, there’s a lie we can tell ourselves that makes us the victor, the savior, the important person in a world where we fear no one will ever care that we existed. As the saying goes, you will be judged or you will be ignored. There is nothing worse to the unduly passionate than to be ignored.

On the one hand, there will always be someone, whether on social media or in a college classroom, who will string together words of rationalization that empower you to do bad, foolish, dangerous and counterproductive things. If your friends, your teachers, validate your worst feelings, then how can they be wrong?

And to be clear, if I twitted that today was Sunday, somebody on twitter would reply “Actually, it’s Monday in New Zealand.” There’s nothing shocking or surprising that there will be dispute, and often a swarm of gnats if you poke a certain nests. There is no shortage of nuts and knaves out there, and they now find each other and hold hands in support of whatever idiocy moves them.

For the most part, this is harmless in the sense that they worst they can hurl is invective, as if being called “fascist” or “cuck” by a swarm of dopes matters to anyone of substance. But when they are hurling soup at masterpieces, the harm that might follow steals from society things of meaning. Mind you, contrary to their insipid yet twisted thought processes, we are more than capable of being deeply concerned about things happening in the world without having to damage a painting to shake the olds out of their comfortable status quo.

It would be easy enough to just chalk up these unduly passionate nitwits as crazies, best ignored so as not to further encourage their antics, but there are a few things that have become undeniable over the past few years. First, narcissism is epidemic among young people. From frog-lipped selfies to broadcasting their worst moments, sometimes made up because their worst moments aren’t bad enough to garner attention, and they are in desperate need of other people’s attention. That leads people to be ever-more extreme in their conduct, as behaving like a mere jackass isn’t distinguished enough to cause a ripple anymore.

Second, they’ve been sold the catastrophication of our world. The world will end in a decade if we don’t “fix” climate change. This is the most racist time in history, with cops slaughtering tens of thousand of black people in the streets every year. Crime is out of control such that venturing outside your house means you will almost certainly be murdered. To some extent, each of these things presents a real problem. Just not the predicted end of the world tomorrow.

And make no mistake, this same fervor to be a savior and matter extends beyond art galleries and supermarkets to the stops of the capitol, where cos-playing boys dress up like soldiers to fight for the “constitution” against purple-haired harpies on behalf of an orange haired loser.

Each wraps themselves up in rationalizations of destruction, an argument that affirms what they want to do, not because their cause is existential, but because they are sad and pathetic, in desperate need of validation to prove they exist and matter, or else why bother to live? This isn’t to say that no cause matters, or no problem is real or serious, but that the extremes of harm and destruction aren’t about fixing the problems, but about making sad people feel as if they matter by doing enough damage to get other people to look at them.

15 thoughts on “Destruction, Rationalized

  1. Elpey P.

    If they wanted to create an even bigger news story they should have vandalized a famous work of indigenous art. But maybe that would have been violence.

  2. James

    Over 4 billion people eat because of fossil fuels (example natural gas to make Nitrogen Fertilizer). The Climate Change movement is attempting to go to zero fossil fuels with no working replacement technology. Destroying some milk and a few old paintings is incidental in comparison.

      1. orthodoc

        I read James’ comment to mean “The Climate Change movement is attempting to go to zero fossil fuels with no working replacement technology. [The damage from] destroying some milk and a few old paintings is [trivial], in comparison [to the damage that would be caused by going zero fossil fuels.]”
        There are well-meaning and seemingly sane people who are outraged by the crazy vandals, yet express sympathy for the vandals’ goals. These people don’t see that the “harmonious eco-future” (as Ross Douthat called it yesterday) leads to poverty, political instability and (as James implies) starvation.
        So I have to disagree with you in part. There are idiots all around, but only the babbling of the flagrant narcissists should be labeled “blithering”. For the seemingly sane who vote for Green New Dealers, the better adjective is “useful”.

        1. SHG Post author

          I understood it the same way. Comparing needlessly destroying paintings with the other harms from this or infinite other causes is moronic. If damaging a Van Gogh would save some how magically save the planet, then let’s do it. Otherwise, what the fuck does a damaging a Van Gogh have to do with anything to modestly sane mind.

  3. Jay

    There you go, attacking young people with a bunch of theories and claiming you care about the environment. You are such a flaming hypocrite it’s actually kinda sad.

    1. Paleo

      Young people who do terminally stupid things that do more harm than good are immune from criticism? Doing so means one doesn’t care about the environment?

      Try applying logic instead of emotion to the problem. You’re way too lost in the panic.

      I saw Justin Trudeau get out of his vehicle on the 3rd in Halifax. His posse was 10 huge black SUVs. Another climate warrior who expects me to. sacrifice in his place. He ain’t really too worried about the climate.

  4. Angrychiatty

    I used to think climate change was an area of concern, but perhaps the full extent exaggerated somewhat and based on science and data points not yet perfectly settled. Nonetheless, something to take seriously.
    But once I saw those kids throw soup on a work of art, it completely changed my opinion. Well done kids, well done.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    These acts of vandalism and stunts “to raise awareness” are about achieving clout among the already convinced. This misses the entire point of discourse and protest which is to sway the undecided in your favor. Damaging art and blocking traffic are more likely to do the opposite

  6. LTMG

    It would have been just if the museum staff removed the painting and left the protesters stuck to the wall for a few days.

Comments are closed.