Right wing authoritarianism isn’t subtle.
edit:
added context:
Here is what Ben is replying to:
Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.
Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain's support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.
Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14
People shouldn’t mess with historic art, no matter how good they think their cause is.
It takes a lot of effort by many dedicated people throughout history to preserve art like this. These works are not individual possessions, but rather owned by us all. They’re part of our shared heritage; we’re merely guardians of it so future generations can enjoy them.
It’s very disrespectful to those efforts when someone attacks a painting.
I think this improved the painting. We have tons of paintings of rich white dudes, we don't need to preserve them all. And the damage to this painting adds depth and meaning to an otherwise unremarkable piece.
We destroy art daily. Consider all the yiff porn that's been made over the years.
Why should I respect a painting of a racist asshole more than I respect the effort that went into producing pornography that at least made some innocent people happy while not glorifying genocide?
This painting is there because that guy was rich and donated money to Cambridge. That's it. Is not even that old (1917). It has no significant historical value any more than a portrait of your town's Mayor from the same period has.
And frankly, I'd care more about pho tears if I didn't know about the Anne Frank memorial in my city, that is yearly desecrated (sometimes multiple times in a year) by Nazi shitheads. Yet have you heard about that? No? I wonder why. Why can a memorial of a Holocaust victim get vandalized without a peep yet when a genociders painting is destroyed art is precious?
Briahna is saying a counter to that way of thinking, due to the genocide that is happening.
What is more important, property or to do anything possible to help stop the killling.
Briahna then states the following is what is chosen:
'property over human life, every time' sounds like a nice gotcha. It also simply isn't applicable here.
That statement would be appropriate if say, Israel bombed a museum in Gaza, and people were upset about the paintings lost rather than the people killed by that same strike.
That statement does NOT apply when someone actively destroys something completely unrelated to it in order to get attention for their cause. Because THEY are the ones doing the destroying. I'd much rather see these 'protesters' do something productive like organize aid for civilians in Gaza or collect funds. Nobody in Gaza is helped by people destroying art halfway around the world. In fact, it only turns people away from that cause.
Part of the reason Palestinians are suffering so much is specifically because Israel is attacking property. Attacking and destroying property leading to the death of people. Obviously a painting like this isn’t going to lead to the death of someone, but it’s a bit of a shallow statement when property is also important. In the event of a fire, human life over property.
I think we would agree that a ceasefire would help stop the genocide and the destruction of Palestinian property.
The tweet is focusing on the backlash from Ben vs. his stance on the genocide of Palestinians.
So I guess you'd say the same thing if somebody was defacing paintings of hitler? Oh I know you think your cause of bringing attention to the holocaust is noble but this isn't the way - this only turns people away and destroys our valued shared heritage of oppression and violence 🥰
And there’s Godwin’s law in action, right on cue.
But to answer your question, yes: I’d say the same thing. Because they are arguably much more historically significant than the painting in this topic. Because Hitler’s shitty painting career in part led him to become the madman he was.
Also, there’s no reason to destroy his paintings to bring attention to the Holocaust. Because it’s taught in literally every history class.
I was meaning an actual portrait, but even Godwin didn't think his law was a fallacy.
And in this case I think it's actually quite apt, considering we are discussing somebody defacing a painting, instead of, you know, the actual genocide going on right now?
Like I'll gladly drop this argument and go protest against the ongoing war crimes - will you do the same?
It is the reason they are doing it. Attacking corp property will bring only justice and people will not be interested much.