• 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.

Cont: Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed - part 3

The delusional ideas in the celebrity side of climate protest can't always apply to those who live in society.

Sorry Goddess Greta, but it fails because your feet aren't in reality.
 
theprestige said:
I just want to be clear about the mask thing. In the screenshot of the YouTube video you linked, nobody is wearing a mask - Including Greta. Nor are they practicing social distancing. Would you say they are expressing the right attitude about the risk of Covid contagion and spread?
Also, are you saying that you personally don a mask whenever you leave the home, or enter some other space, out of caution about Covid?
Click to expand...
They are outdoors, so I would say that "they are expressing the right attitude about the risk of Covid contagion and spread." I wouldn't mask up under the similar circumstances. There are other photos of Thunberg masking up outdoors, probably from earlier in the pandemic, i.e. pre-vax.

And no, you don't "want t be clear about the mask thing."
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The thread is about Greta Thunberg.
Flight Shaming was/is a big part of her agenda.
( Didn't need irelevant Wall'O text to say that )
Click to expand...
It's funny how people, whenever their arguments are debunked, complain about walls of texts.
An article that was about all the places where flights are being taxed or outright banned were presented with glee because the headline made it seem to slow readers as if the article were some kind of refutation of the "girl."
Sometimes it requires (much) more text to show the idiocy of idiotic arguments and postulates than the idiotic arguments and postulates take up.
Skeptics ought to know that, but a lot of them are lacking in that respect.

As Google's AI puts it (the short version):
Refuting a claim effectively often requires more than a simple denial. It necessitates a detailed explanation of why the initial claim is flawed, supported by evidence or logical reasoning. This involves acknowledging the opposing viewpoint, presenting counterarguments, and demonstrating why your position is more valid.
Click to expand...
It is obvious why this fact bothers you, Greg!
 
Last edited:
8enotto said:
The delusional ideas in the celebrity side of climate protest can't always apply to those who live in society.
Sorry Goddess Greta, but it fails because your feet aren't in reality.
Click to expand...
You guys seem to think that any photo of Greta Thunberg indoors must be from her parents' home!
How would you know if her feet are in reality or not?
 
dann said:
They are outdoors, so I would say that "they are expressing the right attitude about the risk of Covid contagion and spread." I wouldn't mask up under the similar circumstances. There are other photos of Thunberg masking up outdoors, probably from earlier in the pandemic, i.e. pre-vax.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That all makes sense. Not masking up outside, post-vax, seems like a reasonable policy to me.

dann said:
And no, you don't "want t be clear about the mask thing."
Click to expand...
I do, in fact, want to be clear about this, in the sense that I want to understand exactly what practices you encourage, to mitigate the risk of Covid. When you say people should still be wearing masks, what exactly do you mean, in practical terms? Now we know you don't mean "wear masks outdoors, if you're not social-distancing".

Do you mean, "always wear masks indoors (except in the safety of your own home or similar)"? Is that the policy you yourself follow?
 
theprestige said:
Thanks! That all makes sense. Not masking up outside, post-vax, seems like a reasonable policy to me.
I do, in fact, want to be clear about this, in the sense that I want to understand exactly what practices you encourage, to mitigate the risk of Covid. When you say people should still be wearing masks, what exactly do you mean, in practical terms? Now we know you don't mean "wear masks outdoors, if you're not social-distancing".
Do you mean, "always wear masks indoors (except in the safety of your own home or similar)"? Is that the policy you yourself follow?
Click to expand...
No, you don't want to know exactly what practices I encourage. If you were interested in that question, you would have asked about it in one of the threads about the pandemic.
Instead, you are trying to derail the thread about Greta Thunberg where the question about masking up is, at best, peripheral.
But I can see why you are no longer interested in flight shaming after Stout's link turned out to be to an article about all the places where flights are being either taxed or banned. Until then, it was a theme that you seemed to be very interested in.

How well do masks protect against COVID-19? (Mayo Clinic)
 
Last edited:
dann said:
No, you don't want to know exactly what practices I encourage.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I know better than you what I want and don't want.

dann said:
If you were interested in that question, you would have asked about it in one of the threads about the pandemic.
Click to expand...
I'm not obligated to behave in ways that are rhetorically convenient for you.

dann said:
Instead, you are trying to derail the thread about Greta Thunberg where the question about masking up is, at best, peripheral.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. If you don't want to answer, I'm not going to press the topic. It does seem to me, however, that Greta is not too concerned about the current risks of Covid.

dann said:
But I can see why you are no longer interested in flight shaming after Stout's link turned out to be to an article about all the places where flights are being either taxed or banned. Until then, it was a theme that you seemed to be very interested in.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in flygskam because it seems to be the most concrete success Greta Thunberg has had, in terms of global climate change policy. Certainly she was not successful in influencing the kind of immediate, drastic change to global emissions policies, that she was convinced were necessary to save her childhood before it was too late.

I feel like I've said my piece about flygskam, but if you want to keep talking about it, I suppose I can indulge you for a bit. What do you think of flygskam? Greta's greatest success, or not?

dann said:
How well do masks protect against COVID-19? (Mayo Clinic)
Click to expand...
General guidelines with lots of options. I was interested in which options you found to be most reasonable for your own practice. But if you don't want to talk about it, I'm happy to return to the original topic of the thread. I might bring it up again, if it turns out Greta has an opinion about masking.
 
dann said:
Maybe Myriad can tell us how much 27,300 car commutes correspond to in hot showers.
Click to expand...

I can certainly do that kind of calculation, but first, tell me what you want me (or anyone reading this thread) to do to stop people like Bezos and his wedding guests from doing things like flying 96 private jets to a wedding.

If I lived in Venice I could have participated in the protests. I suppose I could have flown there. Anything to save industrial civilization from itself!
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I have no clue what argument I was making has been debunked.
Click to expand...
You're just being gaslit, that's all. The article I posted really did state that the Swedes gave flygskam the blood eagle by removing the ecotax. What's just as funny is the articles citing of a company called "Responsible Travel" which sells vacations to far-flung destinations using ecojargon.
 
Is it "gaslit", or is it 'gaslighted'? ...I kind of think it should be the latter.

On the other hand, floodlight doesn't become floodlighted, it becomes floodlit. Still, "gaslit" seems weird to me. I think "gaslighted" is the only one, of the two, that sounds right. But then again, maybe that's just me?


eta: Sorry, completely unrelated, completely off-topic, I know. Don't mind me, carry on.

etaa: Maybe because, while floodlight is separate word, but still, when you light those big overhead thingies, then the place does get "lit". But not so with gaslighting. Maybe that's why floodlight is to floodlit, is what gaslight is to not gaslit but gaslighted?
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
So you were referring to "to hear Greta's fan club tell it, China changed their emissions profile because the Deeply Disturbed Brave Campaigner told them to."
Click to expand...
"They" is a pronoun. Pronouns refer to antecedents. The antecedent for the "they" in my statement was "Greta's fan club."
Matthew Best said:
I ask again, who in Greta's fan club told it like this? What were their exact words?
Click to expand...
I guess you should ask the person who made the claim.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
I guess nobody is going to say who said it, probably because it was completely made up.
Click to expand...
That comes from "The Greta Thunberg Effect" previously posted. Whether that could be extrapolated to apply to China is anyone's guess.
 
Chanakya said:
Is it "gaslit", or is it 'gaslighted'? ...I kind of think it should be the latter.

On the other hand, floodlight doesn't become floodlighted, it becomes floodlit. Still, "gaslit" seems weird to me. I think "gaslighted" is the only one, of the two, that sounds right. But then again, maybe that's just me?


eta: Sorry, completely unrelated, completely off-topic, I know. Don't mind me, carry on.

etaa: Maybe because, while floodlight is separate word, but still, when you light those big overhead thingies, then the place does get "lit". But not so with gaslighting. Maybe that's why floodlight is to floodlit, is what gaslight is to not gaslit but gaslighted?
Click to expand...
Gaslight, gas lighting and gaslit originally referred to light produced by illuminating gas. However since the 1940 movie 'Gaslight', the word gaslighting is being used to mean "psychological manipulation where a person causes another to question their perception of reality". The correct past participle of that would then be gaslighted, as it refers to the movie 'gaslight'. But gaslights are rarely used today, so the original terms are no longer in common use and the word 'gaslit' is now being used for the action of 'gaslighting' rather than 'being illuminated by gaslight'.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Gaslight, gas lighting and gaslit originally referred to light produced by illuminating gas. However since the 1940 movie 'Gaslight', the word gaslighting is being used to mean "psychological manipulation where a person causes another to question their perception of reality". The correct past participle of that would then be gaslighted, as it refers to the movie 'gaslight'. But gaslights are rarely used today, so the original terms are no longer in common use and the word 'gaslit' is now being used for the action of 'gaslighting' rather than 'being illuminated by gaslight'.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Gaslit is the right form, in the past tense, for when actual gas fueled lights are lit. But gaslighted is the right form for the past tense of how it's used today, to mean, as you say, psychological manipulation in order to fallaciously, and fraudulently, pass off night as day and black as white.


(Incidentally: Just a random standalone thought on the grammar of it! No intention here to indirectly, by going to town over gaslighting, take sides on whether this was actually gaslighting, here in the thread! In general I'm admiring, and supportive, of Greta, but I haven't followed the specific arguments here closely enough to independently have a view on it.)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom