The gallery still has to be closed, has to dedicate cleaners, invest into security measures etc. Vandalism can be as simple as spitting on the street. But that’s not my point, in general.

My point is why mess with a place what has nothing to do with climate change, and not mess with places that absolutely do have something to do with it?

Why do you assume it’s less shock value? I would argue the opposite

Well I agree with the problem, but I don’t believe attacking art galleries is a solut. Why not spray paint a real estate firm?

You created your own argument here though, right? I can be an advocate for any of one million serious problems that our societies have. Should everyone go destroy art galleries? Housing crisis = art destruction? Unliveable minimal wage = art destruction? Car centric societies = art destruction? Local store increased prices = art destruction? You have to agree that at a certain point this becomes indistinguishable from vandalism.

At what level then is this threshold? Or do you propose a hierarchy of ideas, which are suitable to protest in an art gallery, versus those that aren’t?

Don’t even try. These people are deluded. There’s no way for Israel to do anything. Israel could probably be invaded, its inhabitants massacred and they would still chant bullshit about that somehow being okay. How has so much of the left turned to unconditionally support the nazi-inspired muslim brotherhood is beyond me.

Socially left = they are pro LGBT, generally supportive of minorities, pro vaccine, pro abortion, don’t care about religion etc and on many similar issues. They are in a coalition with SDP. Social democrats also believe in capitalism (with caveats) yet they are considered left. I don’t get what you disagree with

What a headline

Very simply put: FDP = libs. Economically right, socially left

deleted by creator

That is not a very productive generalisation, and I am sure you understand it

Look,I agree with everything you say in principle, but how are russian empire glorifiers = tankies? What you refer to as “tankies” quite literally killed the entire russian royal family.

Why would the sample size negate it?

If you assume that people with stronger immune system and less preconditions are less likely to catch COVID, or notice having caught it, surely the sample size does nothing to prevent this bias?

I wonder how is this measured, because I think by now we all have been exposed to COVID, one way or another. Sometimes without knowing. What they could be looking is simply people with a weaker immune system vs stronger immune system/ less preconditions vs more preconditions. I didn’t have time to analyse the article/paper right now but with a quick read I don’t think I noticed explanation how they control against that.

100% by what metric? Unironically curious, lol