• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

Status
Not open for further replies.
gnome said:
So it would have been smarter for her to refuse the platform offered her? Diminish her voice to spite people that are less committed?
Click to expand...

It's weird to judge a child for not doing the "smarter" thing. I don't think she had a lot of options. She was a child, with a deep concern about a serious issue, inculcated in her by her parents. She was being told by her parents and others that this was the right way to go about ameliorating her concern.

But maybe, yeah. Maybe her parents should have reconsidered thrusting her into the spotlight, to be exploited by powerful, cynical people who saw her as a way to signal a virtue they did not actually possess.

And maybe, regardless of what she and her parents felt was the best way for her to express her concern and assuage her fears about the future, the rest of us shouldn't have gone on celebrating a messenger whose message we had no intention of heeding.

As always, my objection is not so much about Greta and her activism, as it is about the cynical, dishonest, cargo-cult virtue signaling of her fan club.

Were she and her parents wrong to embark on that crusade? I don't know. Are you wrong to celebrate her as the champion of a cause you never actually supported? Yeah, I think you are.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Re the thread title, hopefully "deeply disturbed" has been ruled out by now.
Click to expand...
It was ruled out on page 1 of the original thread. "Deeply disturbed" were the words of dickhead right-wing shock jock Andrew Bolt, who was, is, and always will be an absolute wanker.

I got a lot of pleasure out of the Tate saga over my holidays. :D
 
theprestige said:
As always, my objection is not so much about Greta and her activism, as it is about the cynical, dishonest, cargo-cult virtue signaling of her fan club.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know. It was never about her, but us - the cynical, dishonest, cargo-cult virtue signaling members of her fan club (AKA bleeding-heart liberals and other scum on the left).

Because that's what it has always been about. We aren't bleating about global warming because it's destroying our environment and is going to make already making life miserable for everybody. Oh no, we do it to show how virtuous we are in turning away the fruits of capitalism in preference for an ascetic lifestyle. Or at least pretending to.

But why are we liberals so desperate to signal our virtue? To trigger conservatives of course. To punish them for trying to make a better life for themselves. Until recently greed was good, and pollution was just a minor annoyance we would easily deal to once we all became rich. But then some sandal-wearing 'climate scientists' boldly asserted that CO2 (that colorless, odorless gas that makes up less than 0.05% of the atmosphere and helps plants grow) was somehow causing a catastrophic temperature rise due to our burning fossil fuels.

Therefore (according to them) we would have to stop using oil as soon as possible. Did they care that our entire economy relies on it? Of course they did - that was part of the plan - to trick us into changing our lifestyles for the worse so they could increase their status in the scientific community. And we liberals fell for it hook line and sinker. We fell for it because our minds are attracted to schemes that demand personal sacrifice for the 'common good' - AKA communism.

Greta Thunberg is our poster child, a symbol of liberal virtue and a flag we can rally around in our quest for the pointless destruction of wealth, wrapped in a cynical appeal to fairness and empathy. Hardly surprising that you object to it. I would to if I was a cynical, dishonest, cargo-cult virtue signaling member of the capitalist fan club.
 
Last edited:
Sneering at the activists. Beats looking in the mirror and admitting climate guilt.

How many shares in fossil fuel companies and non-renewables do such people own? What do they do with their trash? What transport do they use? They must be part of the problem, surely, because that's how it looks.
 
theprestige said:
When Greta addressed audiences at COP and Davos, she laid out very clear, very specific emissions reduction targets, that needed to be met by very clear, very specific deadlines, in order to avoid a very clear catastrophic result for her generation and the generations to follow. She was very clear in these speeches that half measures and incremental improvements were inadequate and unacceptable to her. She was very clear that they should be unacceptable to everyone.

The changes you have been willing to settle for, the changes you attribute to her efforts, are not the changes she wanted. They're not the changes she thinks you should settle for. Having resulted only in these changes, her efforts have been in vain.

Your celebration of Greta is premised on dismissing her actual goals and substituting them with your own. Even though she's been quite clear that your goals are woefully inadequate to the task at hand. And you respond with personal abuse whenever this is pointed out. Why? Are you really that invested in doing almost nothing, calling it good, and crediting Greta for inspiring your infinitesimal comfort-zone "efforts"?
Click to expand...


This is goofy. Because she only got some improvements, she's not only a failure, but some sort of cult? The world's not so black and white. Sometimes progress is frustratingly incremental. She's not a dictator, so she's not responsible for entire governments. The obsession is weird.
 
gabeygoat said:
This is goofy. Because she only got some improvements, she's not only a failure, but some sort of cult? The world's not so black and white. Sometimes progress is frustratingly incremental. She's not a dictator, so she's not responsible for entire governments. The obsession is weird.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
By the 'logic' shown here no societal problem should ever be addressed by activists at all.

Women wanting rights? Bah, those first suffragists did not get full equality once they started asking for it, so they should not have done so in the first place.

Slavery being bad? Bah, those abolitionists did not get their wish once they started asking for it, so they should just have let things be.

Peasants wanting rights? Bah, they all just got murdered and their revolutions just replaced kings with worse dictators, so democracy is a failure.

Each of these things took centuries and none of them are truly solved, we still have strides to make, yet if people had not asked the impossible all those years ago, humanity would be worse off, even taking all the failures and disappointments that have happened in account.

Without young and strident people like Greta to give a counterpoint old and cynical people who have no stake in the future are the ones who get to decide things.

Now, the world can handle us burning fossil fuel at will to fuel economic growth. We'd lose some land, but we'd gain a lot too. And how much economic damage would it really cause when all our main agricultural land becomes a desert and we need to shift the agriculture to the north? And losing all our major cities along the coast? Best to do nothing and make fun of those trying to avert that.
 
By the 'logic' shown here no societal problem should ever be addressed by activists at all.
Click to expand...
The other problems you enumerated were actually mitigated by activism.
Gaining equal rights for people regardless of color or gender was a realistic goal.
Measurable changes have been achieved in that regard.

The immediate cessation of the use of fossil fuels, and destroying the global economy is not a very realistic goal, and our advancement in that regard can also be measured.
 
Greta doesn't trigger most people. Most think she and her earlier demands are totally irrelevant and impossible.

Instead we now have eastern Europe in flames and all done by diesel fueled war machines in large numbers. Surely this isn't reducing global emissions.

The recent pandemic threw it all into disarray horribly and frankly no nation is willing to tank it's economy for her demands.

It's stuff the average person anywhere on the globe really can't make a huge difference in changing. It's certainly bigger than lil' old me.

The only solution for most of us it to try to change our own homes and local community. Now someone will shout "that isn't enough!!!"
To meet her demands you are absolutely correct. But not even the Thunbergs are really even trying that as they put in on big government to find a way to fix it.

We aren't supposed to learn by thier example?
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg said:
The other problems you enumerated were actually mitigated by activism.
Gaining equal rights for people regardless of color or gender was a realistic goal.
Measurable changes have been achieved in that regard.

The immediate cessation of the use of fossil fuels, and destroying the global economy is not a very realistic goal, and our advancement in that regard can also be measured.
Click to expand...

Yet those starting the actions for equalization never called for a slow and steady progress, they asked for full equality at once.
And what happened was a slow progress, still not complete.

So I see Greta in that line. While fully removing fossil fuels now is really the best action in regards to our long term survival it's actions like hers that at least push for slow progress.
Though to be fair, Putin is helping a lot too now, people were unwilling to use less gas for the environment, but now that Russia's made it more expensive the same result is achieved and civilization is not collapsing when we consume less.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The other problems you enumerated were actually mitigated by activism.
Gaining equal rights for people regardless of color or gender was a realistic goal.
Measurable changes have been achieved in that regard.

The immediate cessation of the use of fossil fuels, and destroying the global economy is not a very realistic goal, and our advancement in that regard can also be measured.
Click to expand...
One of these things is not like the other.
 
8enotto said:
Greta doesn't trigger most people. Most think she and her earlier demands are totally irrelevant and impossible.

Instead we now have eastern Europe in flames and all done by diesel fueled war machines in large numbers. Surely this isn't reducing global emissions.

The recent pandemic threw it all into disarray horribly and frankly no nation is willing to tank it's economy for her demands.

It's stuff the average person anywhere on the globe really can't make a huge difference in changing. It's certainly bigger than lil' old me.

The only solution for most of us it to try to change our own homes and local community. Now someone will shout "that isn't enough!!!"
To meet her demands you are absolutely correct. But not even the Thunbergs are really even trying that as they put in on big government to find a way to fix it.

We aren't supposed to learn by thier example?
Click to expand...

That isn't enough. It's nowhere near enough, and is in fact a ruse to shift the blame for global warming onto individual people. What Greta is urging is what needs to happen. If it doesn't, we're heading for a worst case scenario.

The life we lead today is unsustainable and will not be possible for long. Some of us might die off before the worst effects start, but most of us won't, and our kids certainly won't. People of Greta's generation will suffer through increased food insecurity, consecutive migrant crises, increased armed aggression and the destruction of our biosphere. Doing nothing will lead to these things. Doing what you propose will as well. The only option is radical change on a global scale.
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
We should be surprised that the ideas of a teenager weren't accomplished by her actual attempt to address climate change? And she's still only 19.

Her age doesn't matter to her detractors here which I think is an easy way to dismiss most of the arguments. Her age is the main factor.

When I was her age I was playing guitar, getting stoned and chasing girls. Mostly getting stoned.

We'll see how she does once she reaches her (checks notes) twenties.

Anyways, most of us seem to get that. "Hate Greta and the climate change hoax, Hunter, all the dirty air will come from China anyways!" You can tell it's just right wing talking points because it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

The difference is you actually did get stoned. She never achieved any of her goals. Thus, you win, she loses. Simple really.
 
uke2se said:
That isn't enough. It's nowhere near enough, and is in fact a ruse to shift the blame for global warming onto individual people. What Greta is urging is what needs to happen. If it doesn't, we're heading for a worst case scenario.

The life we lead today is unsustainable and will not be possible for long. Some of us might die off before the worst effects start, but most of us won't, and our kids certainly won't. People of Greta's generation will suffer through increased food insecurity, consecutive migrant crises, increased armed aggression and the destruction of our biosphere. Doing nothing will lead to these things. Doing what you propose will as well. The only option is radical change on a global scale.
Click to expand...

The second paragraph is the entire human history from the tribes in caves to the present. We may be too stupid to save ourselves as idealists demand.
 
8enotto said:
The second paragraph is the entire human history from the tribes in caves to the present. We may be too stupid to save ourselves as idealists demand.
Click to expand...

What you are now spouting is a form of climate denialism, the last stage: "It might be happening but there's nothing we can do about it". Don't do that.
 
carlosy said:
Not too stupid.
Too lazy!
Click to expand...

I guess in a way our species is a perpetual teenager.

Not do this fun thing now so I won't have problems later? Nah, lets just live like no tomorrow, smoke, drink and be merry, I'm sure I will be the one not to be negatively effected when I get old.

*30 years later*
I wish I'd never .....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom