Greta Thunberg & Extinction Rebellion (feat. Andrew Tate)

Christian

Christian

GOOD BYE!
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
44,092
Location
Darkness
In other news:

74dlro9jldo31.gif


:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sometimes i wonder if she isn't a too ott for the good of the cause she fighting for. it feels like the media is turning her into the embodiment of something that is much bigger than her and i'm not sure that's a fair thing to do to a kid. not that she (or her parents) doesn't have a choice in the matter.
 
maybe we need a separate thread. i'd love to hear people's take on her.
 
ameraal said:
sometimes i wonder if she isn't a too ott for the good of the cause she fighting for. it feels like the media is turning her into the embodiment of something that is much bigger than her and i'm not sure that's a fair thing to do to a kid. not that she (or her parents) doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

I kinda have a fair bit of faith that her parents would step in if things got out of hand or if she was suffering in any shape:

malena.gif
 
ameraal said:
sometimes i wonder if she isn't a too ott for the good of the cause she fighting for. it feels like the media is turning her into the embodiment of something that is much bigger than her and i'm not sure that's a fair thing to do to a kid. not that she (or her parents) doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

came across this today and i echo some of the sentiments. it's dangerous to equate one person with a movement and i agree personal responsibility should be central to the debate though i also think warren's point was very much valid.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html

How 16-year-old Greta Thunberg’s rise could backfire on environmentalists
PUBLISHED TUE, SEP 24 2019 8:42 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, SEP 24 2019 9:47 AM EDT

Jake Novak

Sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden is the new face of the environmentalist movement, thanks to a pair of impassioned speeches to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations.

But while personalizing a movement, especially with the innocent face of a child, is usually PR gold, Greta’s ascendancy to the forefront of environmental activism could end up being a major negative to the movement – and the environment.

Just how inspiring or even persuasive you find Greta’s speeches and overall activism likely depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. There are plenty of politicians and regular voters claiming to be inspired by her words and passion. There are also lots of observers expressing general alarm at what they see as an indoctrinated child being coerced by adults to make their political arguments with her youth as a shield from any criticism.

Her story signals a clear change in environmental movement tactics, and just how much more divisive and ineffective that change is likely to be.

Greta, and the adults guiding her, are seeking to shift almost all the focus from personal responsibility to governments and big corporations to enact environmental reform. Their argument is that individual people can’t do much to save the world from climate change disaster when energy companies and governments focused mostly on economic growth don’t care enough to make the big changes.

The adult version of that argument emerged earlier this month when Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren basically mocked personal conservation efforts. Warren told a climate town hall audience and later tweeted that the fossil fuel industry wants the public to discuss issues like plastic straws, lightbulbs, and cheeseburgers so they can continue to get away with producing most of the emissions blamed for climate change.

The funny thing about all of this is the free market is already doing these things based on the same capitalist incentives Greta and so many other activists are blaming for environmental disaster. Natural gas is cheaper and produces 50% fewer emissions than coal, nuclear power has been modernized and made much safer in recent decades while producing no emissions. For-profit entities like a company called Carbon Engineering are working on machines that literally suck carbon emissions out of the atmosphere.

Each of these innovations has enjoyed some level of government support here and there, but raw capitalistic profit motives are the primary driver. Warren and those like her are failing to see that millions more Americans who use their consumer spending powers to reduce their carbon footprint will send corporate America chasing after those dollars in a much faster and more effective way than government fiat.

It’s not just die-hard capitalists or environmental skeptics who are pushing back on this focus away from personal responsibility. In a remarkable interview on PBS last week, author Jonathan Safran Foer spoke out against Warren’s comments and pointed out that those who say they believe in the dire effects of climate change would do more than protest if they really believed it. That point is the premise of Foer’s new book, “We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast.”

Based on all the politically partisan slogans and signs we saw at the climate protests over the past few days, are we sure the top motivation is the environment and not politics? If the activists protesting right now could get the most serious climate change threats eliminated, but without politically defeating President Trump and Republicans and/or putting the big oil companies out of business in the process, would they still be interested in the cause?

The shift from the “Think Globally, Act Locally,” environmental philosophy of the 1980s and 1990s makes that question fair game. When we move from encouraging people to change their personal practices to something like Warren’s mocking of that very idea, it guts the very soul of any movement for effective change.

Previous generations of environmental activists knew this. By focusing on what people could do in their own personal lives to cut down on pollution, they presided over an environmental movement that used to be much more bipartisan in America.

This new focus on making environmentalism an angrier protest movement threatens to make the effort to protect the planet just another wedge issue that politicians often use to motivate their base of voters. Similar wedge issues like abortion and gun control have long shifted become tribal controversies with little chance of progress and compromise.

Greta Thunberg is angry. Lots of people are angry. But anger without doing something other than protesting and making speeches won’t protect the environment or do much else other than produce more anger.
 
I think the Greta stuff is worth spinning off into its own thread - mods?

That "transcript", though actually nothing of the sort and in face a meeting memo, is pretty damning. How did his team think this would exonerate him?

It plainly shows Trump asking a foreign government to liaise with the attorney general to the US and his personal lawyer to investigate the family of his political rival!

LOCK HIM UP, etc.
 
My opinion on Greta is that while the whole thing is a bit too woke for me, I’m glad that she has raised awareness among her generation all over the world. Whether it would lead to actual change or just fade away like everything else, it’s still better than nothing.
 
Exactly. Anyone saying she might damage the cause or whatever is full of shit. Thank god she and others are actually TRYING to DO SOMETHING because fuck knows our GOVERNMENTS AREN'T
 
Ron jr is very aware of the climate situation at 7. I’m sure in part its because of his school, but I think its amazing that his generation are so engaged. I took him to the youth climate strike last Friday, and was really taken back with the passion these kids have for the cause. I saw a 10 year old girl rip the mayor of Manchester to shreds, and lots of impassioned teenagers. All I gave a shit about at 14 was cider and fingering.

Greta is the most visible, but from what Ive seen so far there is a genuine movement of youth here, and there are less public figureheads inspiring their peers, long may it continue.
 
I also love how much they are upsetting the older generation. I’ve spent a lot of time this week putting some cunts in their box.
 
big ron said:
I also love how much they are upsetting the older generation. I’ve spent a lot of time this week putting some cunts in their box.
Click to expand...

The vitriol I've seen from people the age of grandparents towards children (Thunberg in particular, but also a lot of the school children participating in the two or three climate strikes we have had here) is something I've found quite staggering.
 
lolly said:
The vitriol I've seen from people the age of grandparents towards children (Thunberg in particular, but also a lot of the school children participating in the two or three climate strikes we have had here) is something I've found quite staggering.
Click to expand...

Its bonkers, and dont get me started on this ‘well in the 60s and 70s we didnt...” BULLSHIT
 
lolly said:
The vitriol I've seen from people the age of grandparents towards children (Thunberg in particular, but also a lot of the school children participating in the two or three climate strikes we have had here) is something I've found quite staggering.
Click to expand...
Well they'll all be dead soon and not even because of the planet so let them bitch while our gen and the ones below do something! :disco:
 
It's absolutely bonkers how threatened people are by her. You start to see how people ossify when they won't accept anything other than absolute validation from anyone who happens to be younger than them. A couple of weeks ago, I was listening to Billie Eilish's album whilst reading the book(let) of Thunberg's speeches and it did occur to me that this was great art and great speech-making by teenagers and I'm 46. But I would absolutely hate to be one of these crumbly old tossers and we all know the sort.
 
Hee hee. No-one gets 100% strike rate, not even Bill Drummond so we'll let it go.
 
ameraal said:
came across this today and i echo some of the sentiments. it's dangerous to equate one person with a movement and i agree personal responsibility should be central to the debate though i also think warren's point was very much valid.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html

How 16-year-old Greta Thunberg’s rise could backfire on environmentalists
PUBLISHED TUE, SEP 24 2019 8:42 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, SEP 24 2019 9:47 AM EDT

Jake Novak

Sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden is the new face of the environmentalist movement, thanks to a pair of impassioned speeches to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations.

But while personalizing a movement, especially with the innocent face of a child, is usually PR gold, Greta’s ascendancy to the forefront of environmental activism could end up being a major negative to the movement – and the environment.

Just how inspiring or even persuasive you find Greta’s speeches and overall activism likely depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. There are plenty of politicians and regular voters claiming to be inspired by her words and passion. There are also lots of observers expressing general alarm at what they see as an indoctrinated child being coerced by adults to make their political arguments with her youth as a shield from any criticism.

Her story signals a clear change in environmental movement tactics, and just how much more divisive and ineffective that change is likely to be.

Greta, and the adults guiding her, are seeking to shift almost all the focus from personal responsibility to governments and big corporations to enact environmental reform. Their argument is that individual people can’t do much to save the world from climate change disaster when energy companies and governments focused mostly on economic growth don’t care enough to make the big changes.

The adult version of that argument emerged earlier this month when Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren basically mocked personal conservation efforts. Warren told a climate town hall audience and later tweeted that the fossil fuel industry wants the public to discuss issues like plastic straws, lightbulbs, and cheeseburgers so they can continue to get away with producing most of the emissions blamed for climate change.

The funny thing about all of this is the free market is already doing these things based on the same capitalist incentives Greta and so many other activists are blaming for environmental disaster. Natural gas is cheaper and produces 50% fewer emissions than coal, nuclear power has been modernized and made much safer in recent decades while producing no emissions. For-profit entities like a company called Carbon Engineering are working on machines that literally suck carbon emissions out of the atmosphere.

Each of these innovations has enjoyed some level of government support here and there, but raw capitalistic profit motives are the primary driver. Warren and those like her are failing to see that millions more Americans who use their consumer spending powers to reduce their carbon footprint will send corporate America chasing after those dollars in a much faster and more effective way than government fiat.

It’s not just die-hard capitalists or environmental skeptics who are pushing back on this focus away from personal responsibility. In a remarkable interview on PBS last week, author Jonathan Safran Foer spoke out against Warren’s comments and pointed out that those who say they believe in the dire effects of climate change would do more than protest if they really believed it. That point is the premise of Foer’s new book, “We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast.”

Based on all the politically partisan slogans and signs we saw at the climate protests over the past few days, are we sure the top motivation is the environment and not politics? If the activists protesting right now could get the most serious climate change threats eliminated, but without politically defeating President Trump and Republicans and/or putting the big oil companies out of business in the process, would they still be interested in the cause?

The shift from the “Think Globally, Act Locally,” environmental philosophy of the 1980s and 1990s makes that question fair game. When we move from encouraging people to change their personal practices to something like Warren’s mocking of that very idea, it guts the very soul of any movement for effective change.

Previous generations of environmental activists knew this. By focusing on what people could do in their own personal lives to cut down on pollution, they presided over an environmental movement that used to be much more bipartisan in America.

This new focus on making environmentalism an angrier protest movement threatens to make the effort to protect the planet just another wedge issue that politicians often use to motivate their base of voters. Similar wedge issues like abortion and gun control have long shifted become tribal controversies with little chance of progress and compromise.

Greta Thunberg is angry. Lots of people are angry. But anger without doing something other than protesting and making speeches won’t protect the environment or do much else other than produce more anger.
Click to expand...

The guy that wrote this comes across an absolute wanker. This article would have some weight if Greta did not also exhibit and advocate for personal responsibility. Unless you consider BOATING ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO AVOID TAKING A PLANE passing the buck.

Her message is that we all need to do something, and particularly that our personal efforts are futile if big business do not also take action. All this talk of being led by the consumer to desire environmentally conscious choices is all VERY middle class... a lot of people just can’t afford to make the environment a priority in their everyday spending habits.
 
Tetris-Rock said:
The guy that wrote this comes across an absolute wanker. This article would have some weight if Greta did not also exhibit and advocate for personal responsibility. Unless you consider BOATING ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO AVOID TAKING A PLANE passing the buck.
Click to expand...

i consider BOATING ACROSS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO AVOID TAKING A PLANE trying to make a point and not much else, especially if the stuff about it actually requiring more plane tickets than if she had gone by air is true.

of course personal responsibility is a huge part of it. the deterioration of nature is down to consumerism and irresponsibility.

that article for me was more an example of the dangers of having one person, in this case a child, being equated with the movement to fight climate change. you give the opposite side an easy target.
 
Because disruption. No successful protest ever caused no disruption.
 
I had someone in work try and argue that Extinction Rebellion were hypocrites because they published a book and books are made of paper and paper is bad. I attempted to discuss how we had a successful publishing industry for a couple of hundred years without issue, that chunks of the publishing industry had put their house in order re. recycling and sustainable foresting and so on but he merely scoffed and threw his Metro in the non-recycling bin.

What a cunt.
 
XR have released a statement about this now, basically saying they didn't really support this, it did seem a bit reductive.
 
The point is still that we had a publishing industry that was much bigger than it is now without being under threat of extinction. We need to get over "climate change isn't real because you took a flight last month" bullshit or we're completely fucked.
 
I don't want to AMPLIFY him but his video response is truly pathetic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom