I’m sorry, I’m having difficulty following your point.

That’s a really, really crap argument that is permissive of all kinds of cultural genocide.

Isn’t it the opposite? He’s arguing that work of cultural importance should NOT be in private hands. You might say, “Who gets to determine what’s culturally significant? And why do we trust governments to do a better job than private collectors?” Those are fair questions, I think, but then I get lost again:

A LOT of artwork is in private collections that by no right should be.

Right, that’s what he’s arguing too.

I live in country that used to “legally” buy and sell people.

Ok, so… You acknowledge that just because it’s legal to trade in something, doesn’t mean that it’s moral or ethical. So is that also true of culturally-significant artwork?

See why I’m confused as to your argument?

Eh, “Good thing we had dangling pianos to drop on the guy who’s been cutting all the cords on our dangling pianos” isn’t quite a strong argument for the pro-dangling pianos side

It’s just reposting ABC News if that matters

Maybe not the best time to fire lasers at Ecuador, just saying

I’ll post some while we wait:

• six cases of workers who developed cancer or leukemia due to radiation exposure
• There would have been more cases, but people were evacuated

Karma for what?

After Fukushima, there was a reddit comment to the effect of, “You mean it took an earthquake AND a tsunami to make a nuclear plant dangerous? Nuclear sounds pretty safe to me!”

There is a specific kind of nuclear simp who will go to any length to ignore its dangers. I hope we can leave that on reddit and keep Lemmy a place of honest appraisal. I’m not even knocking nuclear’s benefits. They are many. But it’s crazy that every 10 years we have one of these disasters and every 10 years the simps come out to reassure us that it’s nothing, really