• 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.
Chanakya said:
...

And also to this exchange here, that you did follow up on, but did not squarely address:
Click to expand...
Lets start here, and if you follow up with the other three posts you are concerned with I will respond as best I can.

I didn't follow up on that exchange, because I did not see the merit..

Roger ( not me ) compared Thunberg's activism to MLK's, which I found a bit insulting to the civil rights movement, but that may be left for another discussion.

The problem seemed to be that I pointed out that Greta demanded " action now " to mitigate the problem of AGW, and that there has been no measurable results from her activism. No results to address the problem. Not that there haven't been results of her activism, which is little more than more activism..

So, Roger throws out MLK's comment of " fierce urgency ", as if it somehow makes Greta's demands more meaningful.

As it happens, after the " I Have a Dream " speech in 1963, we have the " Civil Rights act of !964 "..

After Greta's 2018 speech at COP24 we have nothing..
 
Last edited:
Last time I checked:

- The IPCC was clear about the rate of global temperature increase.

- The IPCC was clear about the catastrophic results in Greta's lifetime, if the rate of increase was not slowed by a certain amount.

- The IPCC was clear about the amount of GHG emissions reductions necessary to slow the rate of temperature increase and avoid the looming catastrophe.

- The IPCC was clear about the rate at which emissions would need to reduced, in order to avoid the looming catastrophe in Greta's lifetime.

- Greta was clear about wanting to avoid that catastrophe in her lifetime.

- Everyone was clear about Greta's message of "how dare you" allow this catastrophe to befall her and her entire generation - what she was talking about, and what she believed needed to be done.

Dr. King could afford to celebrate incremental improvements, even as he called for immediate and major transformations, because something is better than nothing, and every little bit of progress helps.

And we, too, can afford to celebrate incremental improvements, for the same reason - as long as we accept that we're not even going to try to avoid the catastrophe the IPCC has so clearly spelled out, and that Greta has so clearly and vehemently called us to avoid.

Greta cannot afford to celebrate incremental improvements. Because incremental improvements result in catastrophe for her and her generation. Nobody who celebrates Greta's activism should settle for incremental improvements.

What we cannot do, in good conscience, is celebrate incremental improvements and Greta's call to immediate, drastic action to avoid her catastrophe, at the same time. But that's exactly what Greta's fans try to do. They try to credit her for the success of a program she never wanted. They try to credit her for the abject failure of the program she did want. And whenever this disingenuous hypocritical cargo-cultism is brought up, they respond with vicious personal attacks, gish-gallop distractions, and other bad faith tactics.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I'm trying to rank the mix of jealousy, being upstaged by someone 1/5th of their age, and the fact that Greta is encouraging socialism by default, that turns old white men so vehemently against her.

I think it's probably equal measures of those three, which a touch of miserable old git thrown in.
Click to expand...

Oh my. This whole daddy/white knight mindset sure does prompt people to say the strangest things. +1 creativity.

Nobody's tried the misogynist angle for a while, there's always that one in times of desperation.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Lets start here, and if you follow up with the other three posts you are concerned with I will respond as best I can.

I didn't follow up on that exchange, because I did not see the merit..

Roger ( not me ) compared Thunberg's activism to MLK's, which I found a bit insulting to the civil rights movement, but that may be left for another discussion.

The problem seemed to be that I pointed out that Greta demanded " action now " to mitigate the problem of AGW, and that there has been no measurable results from her activism. No results to address the problem. Not that there haven't been results of her activism, which is little more than more activism..

So, Roger throws out MLK's comment of " fierce urgency ", as if it somehow makes Greta's demands more meaningful.

As it happens, after the " I Have a Dream " speech in 1963, we have the " Civil Rights act of !964 "..

After Greta's 2018 speech at COP24 we have nothing..
Click to expand...
As it happens MLK certainly didn't bring about the Civil Rights Act by himself. Other than MLK being on a higher level than Greta, the analogy was absolutely valid.

And you keep cherry picking so you can argue with a straw man. It's a friggin' movement. Greta is a catalyst and a good one at that as are other leaders.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
What we cannot do, in good conscience, is celebrate incremental improvements and Greta's call to immediate, drastic action to avoid her catastrophe, at the same time. But that's exactly what Greta's fans try to do. They try to credit her for the success of a program she never wanted. They try to credit her for the abject failure of the program she did want. And whenever this disingenuous hypocritical cargo-cultism is brought up, they respond with vicious personal attacks, gish-gallop distractions, and other bad faith tactics.
Click to expand...
I still think you're strawmanning and well-poisoning with your references to "cargo-cultism". There is no cargo cult. Your rhetoric merely makes you look like a reactionary.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
She's in good company. :) And yes, autism is a 'superpower'.
Click to expand...

So we've been hearing with the whole indigo children thing however leaping onto the world stage and delivering a guilt tripping temper tantrum of a lecture fails to tick that hyper-rational box.

Interesting 'prediction'. On what basis do you make it?
Click to expand...

It was in the post you quoted. The French Yellow Vest movement. In case you missed it or were adverse to looking it up there were a series of protests and riots over access to fuel in a developed country. I'm sure the FBI is aware of them.

China doesn't have to worry about 'reduced western buying power'. The previous US government was discouraging the purchase of technology that we need to combat global warming. Simply permitting free trade will go a long way towards improving the economies of both countries, and help us meet our emissions goals.
Click to expand...

They'll certainly have to worry about it if we trash our economies. If you're talking about the solar panels then I agree, The US should certainly invest in the manufacturing sector and start making their own. If the government needs to subsidize the industry to make it competitive with China's, then so be it.

You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

Sort of, they certainly talk like they are and now it's time to walk the talk rather than digging up more coal.
 
arthwollipot said:
I still think you're strawmanning and well-poisoning with your references to "cargo-cultism". There is no cargo cult. Your rhetoric merely makes you look like a reactionary.
Click to expand...

It actually works if you think of signal boosting and going to rallies as the ritual
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
As it happens MLK certainly didn't bring about the Civil Rights Act by himself. Other than MLK being on a higher level than Greta, the analogy was absolutely valid.
Click to expand...
The analogy doesn't work for me, because King could afford to start slow and accept gradual, incremental improvements. Greta can't. The deadline for her future-destroying catastrophe grinds inexorably closer, and incremental change won't save her.

And you keep cherry picking so you can argue with a straw man. It's a friggin' movement. Greta is a catalyst and a good one at that as are other leaders.
Click to expand...
Greta's activism has failed to catalyze the change she called for. The movement you credit her with catalyzing is not a movement towards the change she called for.
 
arthwollipot said:
I still think you're strawmanning and well-poisoning with your references to "cargo-cultism". There is no cargo cult. Your rhetoric merely makes you look like a reactionary.
Click to expand...

If your only complaint about my argument is the tone, I must be doing something right.

And I'm going to continue to use the term "cargo-cult activism" to refer to what I see as going through the motions of activism as if they were synonymous with successful efforts to bring about real change.

If you think that shoe doesn't fit you or Greta, feel free to make your best argument for why we should consider successful, Greta's efforts to bring about the real change she's called for. I hope that tone policing isn't your best argument.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
: rolleyes :

Perhaps you can show what Greta has done for the AGW problem even approaches what MLK did for the civil rights problem..

We'll be waiting..
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
LMGTFY
Click to expand...

Hahah oh wow!

Top result for "Greta's accomplishments":
1. Greta Thunberg started her activism when she was still a teenager.

2. Greta Thunberg was 'TIME' magazine's youngest person of the year.

3. Greta Thunberg was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize... more than once.

4. Greta Thunberg continually speaks up for the younger generation.​
She pleaded with world leaders to immediately and drastically cut emissions, to forestall a catastrophe for her and her entire generation. And what did she accomplish? A Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
What would you consider a "successful effort to bring about real change"?
Click to expand...

In the case of Greta's activism? Prompt action by world leaders to make the immediate and drastic emissions reductions she called upon them to make. Widespread public support for those emissions cuts as necessary.

While there has been widespread public support for Greta and her show of activism, there has been essentially no support at all for the cuts she called for. Not from the general public nor from world leaders. It is this state of affairs, making a show of supporting Greta (and viciously attacking anyone who doesn't), while tacitly and cynically repudiating her stated goals, that I refer to as cargo-cultism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom