Now, I am not the biggest fan of those kinds of actions, because they are indeed exploited heavily by the burgeois press, but let's talk about attention. I remember there being at least two paint defacings and damaging of private jets here in Germany in 2023 by similar groups. There was next to no press about it - and if you search for it today, it is genuinely hard to find the articles that even mention them, one I found even focusing on the legal questions of insurance, instead of writing about the broader issues at all:

https://www.t-online.de/region/hamburg/id_100188204/letzte-generation-farbattacke-auf-sylter-privatjet-so-hoch-ist-der-schaden.html https://www.aerotelegraph.com/wer-zahlt-bei-einem-farbanschlag-auf-ein-privatflugzeug

So, you would be surprised - actions that target more "deserving" targets often just.... aren't talked about at all, or very little, small footnotes. This at least starts debates, which cannot be denied.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the same way, give this a year. Do you think it would be referred to as a “great point in addressing climate change,” or “those kids that defaced Stonehenge?”

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

It might just also be talked about as "that event everyone got angry about because of false reporting", or "that event where I argued with some people online, and I realised they made better points than I thought", or "that event that made me think about what actions would have been better". There is more than the main narrative, and more than just a single engagement with it if there's discussion happening.

So, yeah, it will create a lot of hostility, but maybe even a possibility to recontextualise that hostility for some people.

But not to say you don't have any point at all - it's true that it can make some things harder to properly talk about, makes it all the more important to oppose the main narrative whenever possible and not feed into it.