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..
I'm not going to make the mistake of calling people names again, that's totally not done, but I might just quote Skeptic Ginger here where she says:
Perhaps you might one day in this thread attempt an actual discussion.
I'm not really up to full speed on my MLK, but I doubt very much his "I have a dream" thing was the first bit of activism he ever attempted. What you argue here would make sense --- not full sense, but some sense --- only if MLK essentially debuted out his activism with that speech. I think it's more likely --- I say this without knowing, and also without checking, and am willing to be corrected on this if I'm wrong --- that he'd been working on the race thing for years before he made that speech.
So that what we have here is a clear example of an activist --- a very successful one, as everyone will agree I hope --- who urgently called for very drastic changes, like immediately, and yet ended up achieving far less immediately, and probably even in his lifetime far less than he'd hoped for and asked for.
How is this not entirely obvious, even after that quote? After all people here have been saying those who celebrate Greta are mistaken because she hasn't already achieved what she's asked for. As have you, as well,
here, when you say,
"The argument that it takes time for activism to get results, is irrelevant in her case, because she demanded immediate action." (And nor is that the only time you've said it. And others have said it far more often than you.)
-----
if you follow up with the other three posts you are concerned with I will respond as best I can
Not really necessary. I mean I could post those three posts all over again if you like, or you could go back to them yourself. But really, others have made far more substantial posts here than the very commonplace things I've said here, so I'll not press on for specifically my posts. But just take
this, where you'd said to me, apropos of nothing at all as far as I am concerned:
"Of course we should celebrate her; because she is a celebrity. ... That's how fandom works.."
Whereupon I'd tried to show you how wildly you're strawmanning away here by setting up that strawman of mine own (and clearly describing my construct as a strawman, not implying that this creature answered to your description or to the description of anyone either here or IRL).
Is it possible that there are those who go weak in the knees simply at the thought of Greta, in the fan sense? I suppose it's possible. Likewise, it's possible that there are those that are driven to insane fury every time they see her image or hear of her. And I'll be fair, chances are there are more of the former weirdos --- actual weirdos! --- than the latter. Nevertheless, all this is strawmanning and wellpoisoning, and to what purpose I cannot imagine, if one's purpose in discussing this is honest.
And again, my observations were only partly, and very minimally, about you. There's lots more, lots lots lots more, when it comes to the other example I had in mind. But I'm not going to go into that again, after having first committed that totally uncalled for faux pas of childishly calling people names (although there are others here that indulge in that kind of thing, or its equivalent, freely enough, but I suppose that part of it is their lookout not mine).
) for both animal welfare and to reduce our carbon footprint. It's unlikely that this will be a permanent change but it's very likely that we'll be vegan/vegetarian for two or three days each week.
