DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on April 27, 2021, 06:20:53 AM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJsdgTPJpU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJsdgTPJpU)
This video has 69K likes and 47K dislikes, that means that Greta is polarizing among people, many people like/support her and also many people dislike her.
What are your views about this girl? Is she RIGHT or WRONG with her speeches and activities?
-
I'll bite; the problem for me is that the first minute of her speech (that's as far as I got) seemed more like an audition for a television show than a political/evironmental speech. I tend toward the notion of "if you have to emotionally browbeat those you're talking to, then your factual/logical argument can't be that good to start with". Not always true, and not true with climate change (more or less), but for me, this is just more of what I write about in the P/R thread a lot: manipulation, coersion, bullying, not debate, discussion, and compromise. If she was 35, we wouldn't know who she is.
-
*
-
What are your views about this girl? Is she RIGHT or WRONG with her speeches and activities?
Her heart is in the right place. The word has a fever, humans don't seem to be bothered with wanting to cure it, and she's gonna inherit a shitty situation from "us adults". She's absolutely right to want someone to do something about our only home.
Does this make her right in everything she says and how she says it? d'uh, of course not. She's a teenager, she's not a goddess came to earth to save us from destruction. But still, taking so much to the heart a huge environmental issue and do something about it in first person, even with her difficulty in being in social situations, is very remarkable. How many of us at 16 were speaking at international conventions in a language different than ours?
Again, nothing of this means that we should create the position of "president of planet Earth" and give it to her, but she's a teenager that, rather than wanting to be a TikTok sensation, took concrete steps to sensibilize the world about a very real problem. I applaud her for even trying.
-
I think she is a hero and very brave. I also don't think she needs to be mocked for her autism as some politicians have done but that's where we are today as a society. :tdwn
-
Good intentions pave the way to hell.
I think there's a disconnect in terms of messaging. Who is her audience and who is she "swaying"? I feel like she's doing a lot of preaching to the choir here. Those that are on board will praise her and laud her for her efforts - maybe even put her up as a moral standard - and those that aren't are going to dismiss her as a mouthpiece.
I'm already convinced of climate change - though I do have a fair number of problems with the typical solutions - and the notion that "even a CHILD understands!" is a hollow one for me. She is, for better or worse, playing on fear, and that's ultimately a dangerous (not the right word, exactly) course to take.
-
Me personally, I get turned off when I see a child or a young person this passionate about something so serious. I always leads me to my anger towards parents who can't let kids be kids. I know that's on me but I can't help when I see the weight of the world on a young woman who should never have that weight on her at so young of an age.
-
While he was, customarily, a total asshole about it, she might be the one area where DJT and I have common ground. You're only a teenager once, and she seems to be squandering the carefree invulnerability that comes along with it. She just strikes me as a girl who really needs to go to a party and get falling down drunk once. Go to a Fish show and get good and baked. Meet a guy (or gal) at a club and get laid. Recklessly crash a car doing something stupid on a dare. Anything to add some flavor to her youth and break away from the seriousness of it all. Climate change will still be a thing when she's 22, but the opportunity to be stupid and crazy with relative impunity won't.
-
While he was, customarily, a total asshole about it, she might be the one area where DJT and I have common ground. You're only a teenager once, and she seems to be squandering the carefree invulnerability that comes along with it. She just strikes me as a girl who really needs to go to a party and get falling down drunk once. Go to a Fish show and get good and baked. Meet a guy (or gal) at a club and get laid. Recklessly crash a car doing something stupid on a dare. Anything to add some flavor to her youth and break away from the seriousness of it all. Climate change will still be a thing when she's 22, but the opportunity to be stupid and crazy with relative impunity won't.
Well, not that I follow her that much, but the times I stumbled upon posts from her she has a sense of humour, for example when she turned 18 she posted that she was finally breaking free from her puppeteers and that she would have revealed "all the truth", while wearing a "Mars is flat" t-shirt. Granted, that's more dorky / nerdy humour, but maybe she has some fun on the side, she just doesn't talk about it.
-
I'm with both King and El Barto. It's a joke between my wife and I when we're watching TV: I tell her "I fucking hate kids". I don't; I have four of my own, but what I mean is what King and El Barto are saying. Lighten the fuck up; I can't stand precocious, 'wise beyond their years' kids. Home Alone is one of my least favorite movies of all time for that reason. There are far too many people these days that spend five, eight years wishing, pretending they are 21, and then the next 50, 60 years trying to recreate 16 or 18.
Sort of a tangent, but I give thanks almost every day that I grew up before social media.
-
I feel like this probably belongs in the PR sub-forum.
-
Me personally, I get turned off when I see a child or a young person this passionate about something so serious. I always leads me to my anger towards parents who can't let kids be kids. I know that's on me but I can't help when I see the weight of the world on a young woman who should never have that weight on her at so young of an age.
Well, she's 18 now, and got started a few years ago.
I think perhaps you forget what being a kid is like.
I had several anxieties about the world around me by 12-13 years of age. One example: I was raised Catholic and when news of the scandals broke I became quite angry and vocal about it. Authorities at my Catholic school shut me down, completely. Didn't even want to talk about it. I felt blocked and just doubled own on my problems with religion. This continued for years and year, and it's still highly doubtful that I would raise my own kids in a similar environment now, which almost all stems from that initial experience.
Sure, kids are kids. But treating them like they're dumb doesn't help. Kids have anxieties about the world around them and have complex thoughts about justice and morality. Perhaps treating kids more like adults is the answer.
-
While he was, customarily, a total asshole about it, she might be the one area where DJT and I have common ground. You're only a teenager once, and she seems to be squandering the carefree invulnerability that comes along with it. She just strikes me as a girl who really needs to go to a party and get falling down drunk once. Go to a Fish show and get good and baked. Meet a guy (or gal) at a club and get laid. Recklessly crash a car doing something stupid on a dare. Anything to add some flavor to her youth and break away from the seriousness of it all. Climate change will still be a thing when she's 22, but the opportunity to be stupid and crazy with relative impunity won't.
Well, not that I follow her that much, but the times I stumbled upon posts from her she has a sense of humour, for example when she turned 18 she posted that she was finally breaking free from her puppeteers and that she would have revealed "all the truth", while wearing a "Mars is flat" t-shirt. Granted, that's more dorky / nerdy humour, but maybe she has some fun on the side, she just doesn't talk about it.
That was actually pretty cool. :tup
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.news18.com%2Fibnlive%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F01%2F1609752948_untitled-design.png&f=1&nofb=1)
-
I don't know enough about her childhood background to comment but I do know that I admire kids that know what they want at a young age and go out and get it. JP and JM practiced for 6 hours a so one could make similar comments about them.
-
Me personally, I get turned off when I see a child or a young person this passionate about something so serious. I always leads me to my anger towards parents who can't let kids be kids. I know that's on me but I can't help when I see the weight of the world on a young woman who should never have that weight on her at so young of an age.
Well, she's 18 now, and got started a few years ago.
I think perhaps you forget what being a kid is like.
I had several anxieties about the world around me by 12-13 years of age. One example: I was raised Catholic and when news of the scandals broke I became quite angry and vocal about it. Authorities at my Catholic school shut me down, completely. Didn't even want to talk about it. I felt blocked and just doubled own on my problems with religion. This continued for years and year, and it's still highly doubtful that I would raise my own kids in a similar environment now, which almost all stems from that initial experience.
Sure, kids are kids. But treating them like they're dumb doesn't help. Kids have anxieties about the world around them and have complex thoughts about justice and morality. Perhaps treating kids more like adults is the answer.
I think your pressures were not about climate control but the normal things kids have to deal with, fitting in, finding one self's confidence. There are already enough pressures s a teen to worry about these big, grown up responsibilities that we all have now.
I miss my youth these days. The pressure only gets amped up and is there all the time as an adult so kids should be kids.
Besides, like El Barto, I wasn't worrying about th ozone layer. I was worried what to wear when I go to a party and this girl I had a crush on was going to be there. :lol
-
I think your pressures were not about climate control but the normal things kids have to deal with, fitting in, finding one self's confidence. There are already enough pressures s a teen to worry about these big, grown up responsibilities that we all have now.
I miss my youth these days. The pressure only gets amped up and is there all the time as an adult so kids should be kids.
Besides, like El Barto, I wasn't worrying about th ozone layer. I was worried what to wear when I go to a party and this girl I had a crush on was going to be there. :lol
Actually, I was very concerned about global warming and racial injustice when I was in grade school in the early 00s, but in the example I mentioned specially my pressures were around the pedophile cabal running my school and my church :lol
But even in that case, teachers and parents shrugged it off, "don't worry about it, you're just a kid" or "it's just the media". Nothing could have been worse. It was the beginning of when I stopped being able to trust parents and teachers as authorities.
I'd be pretty surprised if, for those of us on a forum for heavy metal and prog bands, if being talked down to like that isn't a big part of why we wound up embracing certain subcultures that were more about taking their youthful fans seriously.
I just can't help but think we're going in the totally wrong direction these days. A kiddo a few years away from being eligible to killed by the Government for military service is certainly old enough to have a strong opinion on the world around him. But these days I meet other parents who don't even let their kids work part time once they turn 13-14, and then treat them like they're children until they're like 28. I suppose being aloof of the world until your life is almost half over is a privilege for some.
Not sure what this has to do with Greta anymore. I don't like her particularly, for some complicated reasons`. But her age has never had anything to do with.
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
-
My honest thoughts are that she, as a kid, recognizes there is a problem, and also recognizes that adults should be the ones working on that problem but they aren't, so she is saying so.
Seems fairly responsible to me. Kudos.
Some of you just sound really, really old.
-
I admit it. I am. When you see such a angry, serious face from a young person it throws you off.
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
Honestly, I think she was just the right face for the message. There's no doubt that the media made her who she is, but my hunch is that it probably came about organically. I don't think she was created in a laboratory as the perfect spokesperson for climate change. I think she felt strongly about this and started acting to advance her message, and the media simply decided she was better than Al Gore. The rest is history.
And it's not like she's the first kid to devote herself to a cause. My hunch is that the sciences are full of people who decided at 12 that they wanted to work with whales, or rockets, or cadavers. Same with the arts. I'm quite cool with that, and I've got no problem with Gretta doing what she's passionate about. I just feel bad for people who blow off their childhood in favor of adulthood. I think one day she may well regret it.
-
Steadfastly passionate and woefully unhappy.
I think she was taught and thusly believes that by the time she reaches 50 the world will be uninhabitable. Therefore, she views this as life and death. She needs to live and enjoy the gift of life. I don't think she will ever find the right balance.
-
And it's not like she's the first kid to devote herself to a cause. My hunch is that the sciences are full of people who decided at 12 that they wanted to work with whales, or rockets, or cadavers. Same with the arts. I'm quite cool with that, and I've got no problem with Gretta doing what she's passionate about. I just feel bad for people who blow off their childhood in favor of adulthood. I think one day she may well regret it.
As a guy that, for the most part, feels pretty darn miserable mentally in my childhood, I digress on the bolded. I might be in the minority though with that mindset. Then again, I didn't start really enjoying life as I know it until I was in community college at 20 and found the enjoyments of going to concerts, listening to stuff on radio more frequently, learning to realize that grades and tests aren't that life/death important in the grand scheme of life and learning how to collaborate with others on fun projects.
-
And it's not like she's the first kid to devote herself to a cause. My hunch is that the sciences are full of people who decided at 12 that they wanted to work with whales, or rockets, or cadavers. Same with the arts. I'm quite cool with that, and I've got no problem with Gretta doing what she's passionate about. I just feel bad for people who blow off their childhood in favor of adulthood. I think one day she may well regret it.
As a guy that, for the most part, feels pretty darn miserable mentally in my childhood, I digress on the bolded. Then again, I didn't start really enjoying life as I know it until I was in community college at 20 and found the enjoyments of going to concerts, listening to stuff on radio more frequently, learning to realize that grades and tests aren't that life/death important in the grand scheme of life and learning how to collaborate with others on fun projects. I might be in the minority though with that mindset.
It also depends on your upbringing. What kind of environment were you in at home compared to going to college? Reading up on Greta, it seems she herself dove into activism and her parents were worried with how she was handing herself with not eating ect... She seems to be a very serious child at the time.
-
Me personally, I get turned off when I see a child or a young person this passionate about something so serious. I always leads me to my anger towards parents who can't let kids be kids. I know that's on me but I can't help when I see the weight of the world on a young woman who should never have that weight on her at so young of an age.
Well, she's 18 now, and got started a few years ago.
I think perhaps you forget what being a kid is like.
I had several anxieties about the world around me by 12-13 years of age. One example: I was raised Catholic and when news of the scandals broke I became quite angry and vocal about it. Authorities at my Catholic school shut me down, completely. Didn't even want to talk about it. I felt blocked and just doubled own on my problems with religion. This continued for years and year, and it's still highly doubtful that I would raise my own kids in a similar environment now, which almost all stems from that initial experience.
Sure, kids are kids. But treating them like they're dumb doesn't help. Kids have anxieties about the world around them and have complex thoughts about justice and morality. Perhaps treating kids more like adults is the answer.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I never once ever said to treat them like they are "dumb". I had to raise a daughter through one particularly tough experience, one that will have a lasting impact on her (I don't mean to be cryptic; it just involves another person and I don't feel comfortable hanging them out to dry like that; it's not sexual or physical abuse or anything like that). I never once ever treated her like she was "dumb", but on the same token she WASN'T an adult, she didn't quite have a handle on the complex adult emotions we were dealing with, and rather than make her the spokesperson for all that, I tried my best to make her feel heard - both directly and through therapy - and help her start to incorporate those feelings we all seem to get at some point to some degree or another that we're not the ONLY ones to ever have experienced this, and we're not the ONLY ones to feel that way. I'm not suggesting I did it all - or any of it - right, only that I did the best I could given my understanding and resources.
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
My beef is less with her personally than it is with those elevating her to some level of speciality. Let's not beat around the bush: when you think the other side - those that oppose your way of thinking - are stupid, ignorant and close-minded, there is a powerful implicit message in "and a child will lead them". If you don't immediately see the messaging that "even this kid can understand this, so what's your excuse, dumb-ass", then you're not really paying attention to the way these dialogues historically go.
-
On the subject of whether or not she's happy, this is apparently the only time she's every actually been happy in life. She seems to have been one of those kids that simply needed something to believe in. Her father actually seems pretty level-headed, and while he's concerned that somebody's going to off her (and he's probably correct), he's happy that she found something that made her happy, even though he was initially not very supportive. I don't think it's saying a lot that she needed something so serious to finally find some enjoyment in life, but I can't really argue that it's better than remaining miserable and depressed. If adopting a cause and devoting your life to it is what gets you off, I can't really fault her for it even if it's totally not how I'd do it.
-
Being 31....It's only now where I am realizing about certain aspects of life, or more, these are being revealed to me by me living and experiencing that part of my life in order to actually see it.
That's what I really am talking about with listening to these children, yes we should listen to them, but at the same time. We need to give them that guidance that they do not yet understand and won't until they experience life.
I won't know anything about old age until I actually get there and experience it for myself, but I can understand on how it is by talking to the older people and seeing how they are feeling and learning what got them there in the first place.
Point being, even at the age we are, we don't know certain things. And listening to a child can help us also understand things that they are going to have to inherit from us, based on the decisions we made that they will have to deal with. Hence, living for the benefit of our future, the generations that will come after us, and what world they will inherit.
That is something we should be doing without the need of One Special Girl that spoke to people on the media. Just listen to your own children, and they will tell you the same exact thing as Greta, if they are also concerned about it, and being at the age Greta was given that platform to speak on the media, of course they will have concerns as that is when humans start to become Adults, although they are not there completely yet, they are still learning, and their minds and brains and bodies are still growing. There really is no set time when this stops because peoples bodies are different, some age fast and some age slow, but we all hit adulthood which is when we can understand fully the reality of the world.
-
I quite like her and admire her passion. She's not neurotypical and I like that about her as well because she can serve as role model for others on the spectrum.
I like how she ruffles feathers. When I see people attack her and put her down, I see more about their own issues than hers.
Even asking this question is interesting. How many musical prodigies are there out there? Math prodigies? Athletic prodigies? So many and not many people do anything but admire them for their skills. But being a prodigy on a topic that is a political hot potato and suddenly she's something to be feared or mocked or ignored.
I will never understand the controversy around her.
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
My beef is less with her personally than it is with those elevating her to some level of speciality. Let's not beat around the bush: when you think the other side - those that oppose your way of thinking - are stupid, ignorant and close-minded, there is a powerful implicit message in "and a child will lead them". If you don't immediately see the messaging that "even this kid can understand this, so what's your excuse, dumb-ass", then you're not really paying attention to the way these dialogues historically go.
That is mine too. I have no problem with Greta at all. It's more the ones whom gave her the platform and how they are using her and her message for their own benefits and narratives to get what they want. And they are using what you said with "You seriously can't understand, while this child does. Bro, you're a dumbass."
That's why I wonder how she got this kind of platform in the first place, and what made her the special child....
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
My beef is less with her personally than it is with those elevating her to some level of speciality. Let's not beat around the bush: when you think the other side - those that oppose your way of thinking - are stupid, ignorant and close-minded, there is a powerful implicit message in "and a child will lead them". If you don't immediately see the messaging that "even this kid can understand this, so what's your excuse, dumb-ass", then you're not really paying attention to the way these dialogues historically go.
That is mine too. I have no problem with Greta at all. It's more the ones whom gave her the platform and how they are using her and her message for their own benefits and narratives to get what they want. And they are using what you said with "You seriously can't understand, while this child does. Bro, you're a dumbass."
That's why I wonder how she got this kind of platform in the first place, and what made her the special child....
So you all think she's a product of manipulation being guided others? Am I reading that correctly? ???
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
-
Reading into Greta it seemed to give her focus that she desperately needed. That's good. I'm thankful my mind wasn't filled with so much strife though as her. Adulthood has plenty time for that. My dad didn't tell me much about Nam. He went to the reserves because i was born and he did not want to get drafted with a newborn even through he still could have been sent over. I only found out in my teen years when I asked.
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
-
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
I just learned last weekend at the age of 32 that my Great Uncle (dad's uncle) killed his son and then himself. Turns out the son had some kind of very severe mental retardation and his mother was long dead. My great uncle had some kind of dementia coming on, and said in his suicide note that killing his son was done in mercy. He's all the kid had and he was slowly losing his mind. He feared how his son (I think in his 40s at the time) would react to losing his father to either death or a permanent stay in a hospital. Times were different back then and I don't think the disabled had the support systems they have today in situations like that.
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
My beef is less with her personally than it is with those elevating her to some level of speciality. Let's not beat around the bush: when you think the other side - those that oppose your way of thinking - are stupid, ignorant and close-minded, there is a powerful implicit message in "and a child will lead them". If you don't immediately see the messaging that "even this kid can understand this, so what's your excuse, dumb-ass", then you're not really paying attention to the way these dialogues historically go.
That is mine too. I have no problem with Greta at all. It's more the ones whom gave her the platform and how they are using her and her message for their own benefits and narratives to get what they want. And they are using what you said with "You seriously can't understand, while this child does. Bro, you're a dumbass."
That's why I wonder how she got this kind of platform in the first place, and what made her the special child....
So you all think she's a product of manipulation being guided others? Am I reading that correctly? ???
Not from me. I have no way of knowing if she is being manipulated or guided by others. I just had a beef with third parties using her to send their message and/or drive their agenda. Whether she's a part of it or not.
I'm a father of four, and a grandfather to one-soon-to-be-two. I don't need her to feel the weight of our children's future on my shoulders. That said, many (most?) of the solutions aren't solutions at all, but a way to further an agenda, economic or political or both, and I'm not interested in that. As long as the current second-largest polluter is free from sanction, and can pollute with impunity, our participation is just national suicide, and we'll gain nothing but losing what little global influence we still have. Oversimplification, to be sure, but it's not inaccurate.
-
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
I just learned last weekend at the age of 32 that my Great Uncle (dad's uncle) killed his son and then himself. Turns out the son had some kind of very severe mental retardation and his mother was long dead. My great uncle had some kind of dementia coming on, and said in his suicide note that killing his son was done in mercy. He's all the kid had and he was slowly losing his mind. He feared how his son (I think in his 40s at the time) would react to losing his father to either death or a permanent stay in a hospital. Times were different back then and I don't think the disabled had the support systems they have today in situations like that.
Even in this day and age, that can be an emotional scar that never goes away.
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
It's not really about her to me. And I don't know enough about her to know if she has any good ideas or not. Which is why I've snipped my only comment on her in this thread.
But what I don't agree with is the idea that she, as a teenager, shouldn't be concerned with the outside world, and shouldn't be getting angry about things going on or forming complex opinions about it.
-
Skeever, I'm not talking about 16 year olds. I was talking about youth. Now in her case, it was the exact opposite. Her parents did not influence her into this life environmental activism. But i see many kids today where parents influence 8 year old children into politics, ect...
That's where I was coming at. Greta was very different. Still, you have to wonder reading the stories or her wondering at 8 years old about global warming and her not eating. She's just wired differently and I can have compassion when a child shouldn't have the weight of the world on her shoulders that young. 16, totally different.
-
I just question how a teen was able to gain that high of a platform to be able to talk to the world about a major problem that Adults are trying to figure out how to solve...
Since people dismiss when Adults give their perspectives, what makes a child the highly sought out person about this...What gives her the credentials to be able to speak on something like this?
Having her speak just makes me think they are using her only as the...."Listen to this child, she is the future, and you need to listen to her....Won't somebody please think of the children."
My beef is less with her personally than it is with those elevating her to some level of speciality. Let's not beat around the bush: when you think the other side - those that oppose your way of thinking - are stupid, ignorant and close-minded, there is a powerful implicit message in "and a child will lead them". If you don't immediately see the messaging that "even this kid can understand this, so what's your excuse, dumb-ass", then you're not really paying attention to the way these dialogues historically go.
That is mine too. I have no problem with Greta at all. It's more the ones whom gave her the platform and how they are using her and her message for their own benefits and narratives to get what they want. And they are using what you said with "You seriously can't understand, while this child does. Bro, you're a dumbass."
That's why I wonder how she got this kind of platform in the first place, and what made her the special child....
So you all think she's a product of manipulation being guided others? Am I reading that correctly? ???
No. She has a great message and it should be listened to and heard.
It's that a lot of teens besides her are also just as concerned as Greta. And these teens should be also heard and given a platform to speak as well. Not just Greta....
It's her being the poster child for climate change, when climate change is something that we all should consider regardless of needing a poster child to make us concerned about climate change.
And Climate Change has happened before, and is what made our current geography, as the Earth did not look how it did back then. There were also Ice Ages, and Ages of Draught. All Climate Change.
It's that us humans are now causing the change to shift in a certain way, by what we are doing to the Earth.
-
Skeever, I'm not talking about 16 year olds. I was talking about youth. Now in her case, it was the exact opposite. Her parents did not influence her into this life environmental activism. But i see many kids today where parents influence 8 year old children into politics, ect...
That's where I was coming at. Greta was very different. Still, you have to wonder reading the stories or her wondering at 8 years old about global warming and her not eating. She's just wired differently and I can have compassion when a child shouldn't have the weight of the world on her shoulders that young. 16, totally different.
Would you say the same thing about Malala?
-
Skeever, I'm not talking about 16 year olds. I was talking about youth. Now in her case, it was the exact opposite. Her parents did not influence her into this life environmental activism. But i see many kids today where parents influence 8 year old children into politics, ect...
That's where I was coming at. Greta was very different. Still, you have to wonder reading the stories or her wondering at 8 years old about global warming and her not eating. She's just wired differently and I can have compassion when a child shouldn't have the weight of the world on her shoulders that young. 16, totally different.
I wonder how many people bent out of shape over Greta think it's peachy-keen to convince their kids that a vengeful and wrathful god requires their unquestioning loyalty. This is just a hunch, but I bet there's some overlap. :lol
-
She gave a voice to a segment of the populace that is often ignored by the people in charge. Kudos to her.
-
Family stories fascinate me. I'm not going to lie: I'm actually a little upset with my dad; I've been telling him for years to write stuff down, anything, or speak it into a tape recorder (it's hard for him to write sometimes). He never got around to it and I fear we're running out of time for that.
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
It's not really about her to me. And I don't know enough about her to know if she has any good ideas or not. Which is why I've snipped my only comment on her in this thread.
But what I don't agree with is the idea that she, as a teenager, shouldn't be concerned with the outside world, and shouldn't be getting angry about things going on or forming complex opinions about it.
I'm not being sarcastic, it's a sincere question: did I miss that? I don't recall anyone saying she shouldn't have those emotions or form opinions - complex or otherwise - about this issue. Every kid at some point does that. Not every kid is thrust in front of microphones while they do it, and not every kid has her words given the weight of geopolitical change (and I don't say that with judgment).
-
Skeever, I'm not talking about 16 year olds. I was talking about youth. Now in her case, it was the exact opposite. Her parents did not influence her into this life environmental activism. But i see many kids today where parents influence 8 year old children into politics, ect...
That's where I was coming at. Greta was very different. Still, you have to wonder reading the stories or her wondering at 8 years old about global warming and her not eating. She's just wired differently and I can have compassion when a child shouldn't have the weight of the world on her shoulders that young. 16, totally different.
Would you say the same thing about Malala?
Let's not go to extremes here. There was a reason for he being an activist. Not every kid has the life that many have in other countries free of oppression.
Skeever, I'm not talking about 16 year olds. I was talking about youth. Now in her case, it was the exact opposite. Her parents did not influence her into this life environmental activism. But i see many kids today where parents influence 8 year old children into politics, ect...
That's where I was coming at. Greta was very different. Still, you have to wonder reading the stories or her wondering at 8 years old about global warming and her not eating. She's just wired differently and I can have compassion when a child shouldn't have the weight of the world on her shoulders that young. 16, totally different.
I wonder how many people bent out of shape over Greta think it's peachy-keen to convince their kids that a vengeful and wrathful god requires their unquestioning loyalty. This is just a hunch, but I bet there's some overlap. :lol
And so many people do this too. Bat shit crazy honestly. :lol
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
It's not really about her to me. And I don't know enough about her to know if she has any good ideas or not. Which is why I've snipped my only comment on her in this thread.
But what I don't agree with is the idea that she, as a teenager, shouldn't be concerned with the outside world, and shouldn't be getting angry about things going on or forming complex opinions about it.
I'm not being sarcastic, it's a sincere question: did I miss that? I don't recall anyone saying she shouldn't have those emotions or form opinions - complex or otherwise - about this issue. Every kid at some point does that. Not every kid is thrust in front of microphones while they do it, and not every kid has her words given the weight of geopolitical change (and I don't say that with judgment).
Not every kid wants those things, but some do. Seem to me that we're comparing her to Todd Marinovich, instead of, say, Jordan Rudess. Why?
-
Skeever, I'm not talking about 16 year olds. I was talking about youth. Now in her case, it was the exact opposite. Her parents did not influence her into this life environmental activism. But i see many kids today where parents influence 8 year old children into politics, ect...
That's where I was coming at. Greta was very different. Still, you have to wonder reading the stories or her wondering at 8 years old about global warming and her not eating. She's just wired differently and I can have compassion when a child shouldn't have the weight of the world on her shoulders that young. 16, totally different.
I wonder how many people bent out of shape over Greta think it's peachy-keen to convince their kids that a vengeful and wrathful god requires their unquestioning loyalty. This is just a hunch, but I bet there's some overlap. :lol
Yeah, exactly. In Catholic School nobody cared as long as what you were angry about was Bill Clinton, Roe versus Wade, the terrorists trying to take our lifestyle away, the Disney "gay agenda", Michael Moore, Harry Potter and witchcraft and wizardry, Magic the Gathering cards, ect.
But get mad about racism, the war, pedophile priests, and forget about it. You were getting put on the shit list.
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
It's not really about her to me. And I don't know enough about her to know if she has any good ideas or not. Which is why I've snipped my only comment on her in this thread.
But what I don't agree with is the idea that she, as a teenager, shouldn't be concerned with the outside world, and shouldn't be getting angry about things going on or forming complex opinions about it.
I'm not being sarcastic, it's a sincere question: did I miss that? I don't recall anyone saying she shouldn't have those emotions or form opinions - complex or otherwise - about this issue. Every kid at some point does that. Not every kid is thrust in front of microphones while they do it, and not every kid has her words given the weight of geopolitical change (and I don't say that with judgment).
Pretty sure King is saying kids shouldn't be bothered with it. He said that angry young people make him uncomfortable in general. Could be misinterpreting.
-
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
With respect, you're talking about two different things. You have a problem with someone saying "even a child can see this is fucked up" (which is a true statement), and as evidence you talk about how complicated the solution is. However, the first statement isn't necessarily ABOUT the solution. OF COURSE any solution will be super complicated, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is a problem in the first place can be seen by a child.
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
One person has always been the linchpin in any social change (Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, etc). People don't get inspired by committees, they get inspired by individuals. The fact that she's a kid is almost irrelevant.
-
Greta is awesome! :heart
The hate she gets is sickening.
-
Well, just from my experience my parents were teaching me as a teen fiscal responsibility. You want a car, he bought it all. A car, 1 year of insurance and my 1st tank of gas. He then showed me how much this all cost in a year, what I needed to put away weekly and a bit more because the cost always goes up. Told me if I didn't have the money to do this I would be out of luck.
I didn't learn that my uncle molested my cousin until I was in my 20's. My parents kept that out of my life. That's more of what I'm talking about. Never did my dad stop me and start to tell me the gas wars in the last 70's and who was at fault for this. If I asked he would have a sit down. That's how it should be. Grownups putting their grown up issues on children is bad for kids.
It's the exact opposite. Grown ups putting adult problems on kids was Vietnam, which happened in the 70s, but I guess didn't resonate with suburban teenagers as much as I had thought it did initially.
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
It's not really about her to me. And I don't know enough about her to know if she has any good ideas or not. Which is why I've snipped my only comment on her in this thread.
But what I don't agree with is the idea that she, as a teenager, shouldn't be concerned with the outside world, and shouldn't be getting angry about things going on or forming complex opinions about it.
I'm not being sarcastic, it's a sincere question: did I miss that? I don't recall anyone saying she shouldn't have those emotions or form opinions - complex or otherwise - about this issue. Every kid at some point does that. Not every kid is thrust in front of microphones while they do it, and not every kid has her words given the weight of geopolitical change (and I don't say that with judgment).
Pretty sure King is saying kids shouldn't be bothered with it. He said that angry young people make him uncomfortable in general. Could be misinterpreting.
Kids yes. Teens no. Some kids like Malala who are oppressed are in a different boat for what I'm talking about and my environment. I've been lucky that I didn't live in an area of the world that holds back a person for their sex or race. But your average kid, let them find their own way.
I have 2 friends that don't like Republicans. You can hear their influence on their children early on. It's not that your can't dislike their politics but how you speak of another person. That throws you for a loop. Children shouldn't be aggressive in a mean or vindictive way.
If a child like Grata want's to become an activists and can make any progress on making the world greener than that's great. There is a difference in how you bring up a child and their thought process.
-
All I say to that is being both a young parent and having grown up where most people were the exact opposite of what you mention (I distinctly remember everyone being brainwashed against anything offbeat, alternative, or vaguely left-wing), it stands to reason that the parenting today is just a reaction to the parenting of yesterday. If you didn't want the youth to go around judging people for not being vegans and criticizing cops shooting unarmed black men, many times at their parents approval, maybe the previous generation shouldn't have given their children so many bizarre memories of ridiculous actions in the opposite direction, like when I had to get rid of my Harry Potter books or I was told I couldn't go see Disney's Hercules because it was homosexual. We raised a generation of Christian moralizers and puritans and now we're still the same way even if the Christianity has been replaced with other things.
And that said I do agree with you that there is some kind of reasonable middle ground and I'm definitely not trying to overtly politicize my own son though I guess in the back of my mind I hope he'll be more courageous to live his ideals than I am.
-
My honest thoughts are that she, as a kid, recognizes there is a problem, and also recognizes that adults should be the ones working on that problem but they aren't, so she is saying so.
Seems fairly responsible to me. Kudos.
Some of you just sound really, really old.
I agree with this.
Also, being passionate about things like this and also having fun aren't mutually exclusive. I find some people's reactions to Greta (and others like her) very odd and hard to understand.
Me personally, I get turned off when I see a child or a young person this passionate about something so serious. I always leads me to my anger towards parents who can't let kids be kids. I know that's on me but I can't help when I see the weight of the world on a young woman who should never have that weight on her at so young of an age.
Well, she's 18 now, and got started a few years ago.
I think perhaps you forget what being a kid is like.
I had several anxieties about the world around me by 12-13 years of age. One example: I was raised Catholic and when news of the scandals broke I became quite angry and vocal about it. Authorities at my Catholic school shut me down, completely. Didn't even want to talk about it. I felt blocked and just doubled own on my problems with religion. This continued for years and year, and it's still highly doubtful that I would raise my own kids in a similar environment now, which almost all stems from that initial experience.
Sure, kids are kids. But treating them like they're dumb doesn't help. Kids have anxieties about the world around them and have complex thoughts about justice and morality. Perhaps treating kids more like adults is the answer.
I think your pressures were not about climate control but the normal things kids have to deal with, fitting in, finding one self's confidence. There are already enough pressures s a teen to worry about these big, grown up responsibilities that we all have now.
I miss my youth these days. The pressure only gets amped up and is there all the time as an adult so kids should be kids.
Besides, like El Barto, I wasn't worrying about th ozone layer. I was worried what to wear when I go to a party and this girl I had a crush on was going to be there. :lol
Sure, that was you, but everyone's different. In my teens I went through a phase of worrying about all sorts of things, both societal and philosophical (like what happens when we die. Not climate change, but not entirely dissimilar in principle.
I guess I just don't get why people dislike things they can't relate to themselves.
-
How old are you Skeever? I'm 53. I don't remember the brainwashed against anything offbeat, alternative, or vaguely left-wing. I wanted to paint, play sports, write poetry, play guitar my parents were all for it. None of the neighborhoods talked about that at all. Now, I hung out with friends of many ethnicities, they were just friends and we just played baseball, basketball ect... They invited me to their house and I the same.
I only learned in my teens of segregation. I was the 1st generation not to go to separate schools. I'm glad that did not happen.
Rich, It's easy. I've seen so many parents ruin their kids (My nephew & nieces) but making them act like adults. You are coming for a logical side. Thinking about how you grew up. I can assume your parents were very responsive to your thoughts and needs as a kid and into your teens. They allowed you to be expressive.
I've seen the opposite, where the kid took on adult responsibilities and that has molded my opinion that kids should be kids. It's 2 very different areas where, the adults that are good parents nourish their child. Allow them to grow and expand mentally. I've seen my nephew go to jail because he had no help, no boundaries. Ignorant to wrong and right. Not wanting to expand his learning. Because he had to be the adult early on.
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
And if 2000 people in the WTC hadn't been normal, everyday Americans doing normal everyday American shit they'd still be alive. Is this how it works?
-
Rich, It's easy. I've seen so many parents ruin their kids (My nephew & nieces) but making them act like adults. You are coming for a logical side. Thinking about how you grew up. I can assume your parents were very responsive to your thoughts and needs as a kid and into your teens. They allowed you to be expressive.
Somewhat, but actually they were generally pretty strict and my mum in particular made it very clear what she expected of us. But anyway that's not really what I'm talking about, as I explain below.
I've seen the opposite, where the kid took on adult responsibilities and that has molded my opinion that kids should be kids. It's 2 very different areas where, the adults that are good parents nourish their child. Allow them to grow and expand mentally. I've seen my nephew go to jail because he had no help, no boundaries. Ignorant to wrong and right. Not wanting to expand his learning. Because he had to be the adult early on.
Sure, I agree with most of that, but there's a bit that stands out as jarring from the rest. You say you think parents should support and nourish their child, allow them to express their own interests, let them grow naturally, in their own way. That's all great, I agree. But then you say that "kids should be kids" whether they want to or not, which is inconsistent.
My understanding is that Thunberg is self-driven, rather than pushed by her parents.
My comments before weren't about pushy parents, they were about the kids themselves.
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
And if 2000 people in the WTC hadn't been normal, everyday Americans doing normal everyday American shit they'd still be alive. Is this how it works?
You can't compare those two situations, because they're quite different.
-
Rich, how many kids think about being green? Think about air pollution? I think the percentage is very low. I'm talking young kids, not teenagers. Now most parents will talk about it and not push there kid to be an activist. That's what I mean by saying let kids be kids. Now if a kid says I want to do something about it then you nurture that child and let them expand in what they do in a small way. There is a difference from helping a young child learn and grow or pushing them into your grown up agenda.
Yes, reading about Greta let me see that she wanted to do more and it actually helped her. That is a great thing. She is a rare occurrence.
-
How old are you Skeever? I'm 53. I don't remember the brainwashed against anything offbeat, alternative, or vaguely left-wing. I wanted to paint, play sports, write poetry, play guitar my parents were all for it. None of the neighborhoods talked about that at all. Now, I hung out with friends of many ethnicities, they were just friends and we just played baseball, basketball ect... They invited me to their house and I the same.
I'm 35. And I was raised around adults who acted exactly like what people in this thread claim Greta to be - judgmental, moralizing, indignant, angry. etc. Only then, it was the conservative Christians. These human tendencies aren't "right or left", just basic human responses to the unknown. If it's not in relation to climate change, it's something else. We can't expect the youth to act better than the examples we uphold ourselves. I wonder how many people who dislike Greta because of the way she talks about issues would have been running to the defense of Nug or Rush Limbaugh's defense in the other threads, or have Tucker on at night, or were able to "hold their nose" and vote for Trump. I would imagine that the answer is "most". Examples like that set by the adults have a tendency of trickling down toward the youth when they develop their own responses to the world.
-
How old are you Skeever? I'm 53. I don't remember the brainwashed against anything offbeat, alternative, or vaguely left-wing. I wanted to paint, play sports, write poetry, play guitar my parents were all for it. None of the neighborhoods talked about that at all. Now, I hung out with friends of many ethnicities, they were just friends and we just played baseball, basketball ect... They invited me to their house and I the same.
I'm 35. And I was raised around adults who acted exactly like what people in this thread claim Greta to be - judgmental, moralizing, indignant, angry. etc. Only then, it was the conservative Christians. These human tendencies aren't "right or left", just basic human responses to the unknown. If it's not in relation to climate change, it's something else. I wonder how many people who dislike Greta because of the way she talks about issues would have been running to the Nug or Rush Limbaugh's defense in the other threads. I would imagine that the answer is "most".
Reminds me of my mom. My grandmother told my grandfather that if he went to my mother's wedding that she would divorce him. My Aunts and Uncles to my grandmother to fly a kite. I had an easy childhood because my mom didn't want to be like her mother as a parent. Sounds like you as well.
-
I know very little of her to form any real opinion. I'm sure she means well and all that.
What I don't like is how the media uses a child to push a narrative. I'm not being specific about climate change or any one thing or person. I just feel like it's wrong to put a child into such a controversial spotlight. I think it puts emotion into an issue that shouldn't need any more of it. And I feel like when I read negative opinions on a child that this is exactly why the media should not spotlight children in these cases. Grown adults should not have such strong negative views on a child for their thoughts (not speaking of anyone here, I didn't even read through the thread).
-
How old are you Skeever? I'm 53. I don't remember the brainwashed against anything offbeat, alternative, or vaguely left-wing. I wanted to paint, play sports, write poetry, play guitar my parents were all for it. None of the neighborhoods talked about that at all. Now, I hung out with friends of many ethnicities, they were just friends and we just played baseball, basketball ect... They invited me to their house and I the same.
I'm 35. And I was raised around adults who acted exactly like what people in this thread claim Greta to be - judgmental, moralizing, indignant, angry. etc. Only then, it was the conservative Christians. These human tendencies aren't "right or left", just basic human responses to the unknown. If it's not in relation to climate change, it's something else. I wonder how many people who dislike Greta because of the way she talks about issues would have been running to the Nug or Rush Limbaugh's defense in the other threads. I would imagine that the answer is "most".
Reminds me of my mom. My grandmother told my grandfather that if he went to my mother's wedding that she would divorce him. My Aunts and Uncles to my grandmother to fly a kite. I had an easy childhood because my mom didn't want to be like her mother as a parent. Sounds like you as well.
I wish, lol.
My Dad was into some serious NeoNazi/Skinhead stuff that he indoctrinated me with very early. I learned my lesson (he did too), but the sting of being lined up to give a good ol' Seig Heil remains.
Later, after the Nazi phase, when I was little my grandparents used to go to Disney every year and would offer to take us, but my parents never let us go once because "Disney spread homosexuality". My and my brother used to make jokes and sing songs about it using words much stronger than that and my Dad would laugh and join in. When I finally developed my own views I would fight with my parents about it pretty often.
When I was older in gradeschool I had to get rid of my Harry Potter books and Magic cards as well as Final Fantasy games because my parents decided that it was supporting witchcraft and wizardry. So I did, even though I thought it was stupid.
The Catholic Church scandal happened some time later closer to late grade-school and highschool. I decided I wasn't going to our church anymore. I was screamed at, forced to go unless I wanted all my privileges and possessions taken away, and gaslit (my Mom didn't speak to me for like 2 weeks when I told her that I was no longer a Catholic).
And so much more that I can't even think of.
So I know all about awful parenting that involves a lot of politicizing kids and cultivating radical worldviews in the children. When I think about people who complain because their parents entertain their children's genuine instincts to try and make the world better, I just laugh and think about how my own parents have needed to be drug into the modern world kicking and screaming.
-
Hot damn. See, that's what I'm worried about young kids though some like you Skeever fight what was taught.
-
With Greta, its kids putting adult problems on adults because of the adults don't seem to be listening or addressing them.
Which goes back to the implication that "even a child can see this is fucked up", which in turn goes back to my problem with this. It's NOT so simple even a child could see it. It's a complicated, global phenomenon with many moving parts, not least of which, how do you solve a problem when not every country is in on the solution, or, as is the case in one country, in on ANY solution?
With respect, you're talking about two different things. You have a problem with someone saying "even a child can see this is fucked up" (which is a true statement), and as evidence you talk about how complicated the solution is. However, the first statement isn't necessarily ABOUT the solution. OF COURSE any solution will be super complicated, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there is a problem in the first place can be seen by a child.
No, I actually said SEEING it is complicated; the phenomenon. It's NOT something you just "see" necessarily. In any event, that's not the hill I want to die on; the part that is bothersome, has been since day one and isn't limited to Greta, is the insistance that anyone that doesn't agree is "stupid". See below...
I get it we love our kids, but if the complaint is that "greed is destroying our planet" and yet the complete decimation of that global economy isn't enough to get those in control to move, are we really sure that one strident kid is going to do move the needle?
One person has always been the linchpin in any social change (Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, etc). People don't get inspired by committees, they get inspired by individuals. The fact that she's a kid is almost irrelevant.
No matter how much I like or admire her, she's not Jesus and she's not Ghandi. So beyond that, if someone gets inspiration, wow, that's great. Love it, and no argument. My position is hard, because there are multiple levels here. It's not black and white. If she was my daughter, I'd be proud. If she was my daughter I would be concerned that she was not putting all her eggs in one basket. If she was my daughter I'd be scared to death at the weight that OTHERS are implicitly putting on her shoulders. And that's where my positivity starts to wane. I'm cynical when it comes to the way many/most people have taken to handling these types of issues. There's a glaring and increasing lack of perspective and pragmatism in the way these issues are argued. I would worry that she doesn't quite yet have the worldliness to accomodate that and to answer that.
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
Did you... did you just blame people for being the chosen victims of a terrorist?
-
I guess I just don't get why people dislike things they can't relate to themselves.
That's 99% of American politics right there, and I'm not kidding. Look at any thread here and you'll find a comment to that effect. COVID. Racism. Trump. Clinton. That's the very essence of "us versus them". It's not even AGREEMENT, it's just acknowledging that people can view the same scenario in two different ways. Half the responses here are on that level. There are a couple references here to the "hate" that Greta is facing. Maybe from the outside world; I don't follow her or the responses to her, but there's no hate in this thread. If anything it's cautious concern more than anything. I know I've never said anything bad about her personally; I just worry about her and the maw of activist politics in 2021.
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
Did you... did you just blame people for being the chosen victims of a terrorist?
Nah. I just gave one example as explanation why teens/kids shouldn't be politically active.
When it comes to politics there is TOO MUCH HATE and there is some SICK HATE that would drive someone to kill. Yep, it's the horrible thing but that shit happens. We don't live in the ideal world.
-
The hate is real. (not here)
Go on Twitter and read the comments under anything she posts. ANYTHING she posts. Everything she posts. Read any post on anyone's board ABOUT her and you'll get it, no holds barred.
If I were her parent, I'd be worried some nut job is planning to blow her head off for having the audacity to speak out on climate change. That is the level of hate she gets.
Her parents too, BTW.
-
How old are you Skeever? I'm 53. I don't remember the brainwashed against anything offbeat, alternative, or vaguely left-wing. I wanted to paint, play sports, write poetry, play guitar my parents were all for it. None of the neighborhoods talked about that at all. Now, I hung out with friends of many ethnicities, they were just friends and we just played baseball, basketball ect... They invited me to their house and I the same.
I'm 35. And I was raised around adults who acted exactly like what people in this thread claim Greta to be - judgmental, moralizing, indignant, angry. etc. Only then, it was the conservative Christians. These human tendencies aren't "right or left", just basic human responses to the unknown. If it's not in relation to climate change, it's something else. We can't expect the youth to act better than the examples we uphold ourselves. I wonder how many people who dislike Greta because of the way she talks about issues would have been running to the defense of Nug or Rush Limbaugh's defense in the other threads, or have Tucker on at night, or were able to "hold their nose" and vote for Trump. I would imagine that the answer is "most". Examples like that set by the adults have a tendency of trickling down toward the youth when they develop their own responses to the world.
I'll cop right out the gate to being sensitive to this, the broad-brushing of anything that is to the right of Joe Biden in the partisan narrative, but there's a lot in that post that doesn't apply here. I don't know who's calling HER judgmental or moralizing, I don't know of ANYONE here that is running to the defense of Nugent or Limbaugh or Carlson. I do see a lot of concern for her place in the universe and her wellbeing.
-
The hate is real. (not here)
Go on Twitter and read the comments under anything she posts. ANYTHING she posts. Everything she posts. Read any post on anyone's board ABOUT her and you'll get it, no holds barred.
If I were her parent, I'd be worried some nut job is planning to blow her head off for having the audacity to speak out on climate change. That is the level of hate she gets.
Her parents too, BTW.
Twitter is turning into a cesspool though. It's not just Greta. It's ANYONE that sees something that challenges their world view. For some reason, in my "feed" (is that what it's called? Am I hashtagging?) all I seem to get is the liberal screeds, so I don't see much of the right wing stuff. But I know it's there, and either way it's nauseating, and it's enough to make me consider deactivating my account on almost a daily basis. (Then I get something from Gene Simmons or Cram or King, and I forget to.)
Though having said that, that's part of what I was talking about above, and what my concern/complaint is. I'm very concerned that we - HUMANS, not kids - aren't equipped to handle the emotional burden of an international social media account. It's hard enough worrying about whether your boobies are big enough, or whether your always going to be four inches shorter than everyone else (I'm using sort of standard body image issues that kids face), or whether you're going to be asked to the prom, or whether you're going to have the courage to dance with that girl... and then have to face the wrath of a horde of keyboard warriors. I can't even imagine she's equipped to handle that, and I'm not convinced her parents are any real help there either.
-
The hate is real. (not here)
Go on Twitter and read the comments under anything she posts. ANYTHING she posts. Everything she posts. Read any post on anyone's board ABOUT her and you'll get it, no holds barred.
If I were her parent, I'd be worried some nut job is planning to blow her head off for having the audacity to speak out on climate change. That is the level of hate she gets.
Her parents too, BTW.
Twitter is turning into a cesspool though. It's not just Greta. It's ANYONE that sees something that challenges their world view. For some reason, in my "feed" (is that what it's called? Am I hashtagging?) all I seem to get is the liberal screeds, so I don't see much of the right wing stuff. But I know it's there, and either way it's nauseating, and it's enough to make me consider deactivating my account on almost a daily basis. (Then I get something from Gene Simmons or Cram or King, and I forget to.)
Though having said that, that's part of what I was talking about above, and what my concern/complaint is. I'm very concerned that we - HUMANS, not kids - aren't equipped to handle the emotional burden of an international social media account. It's hard enough worrying about whether your boobies are big enough, or whether your always going to be four inches shorter than everyone else (I'm using sort of standard body image issues that kids face), or whether you're going to be asked to the prom, or whether you're going to have the courage to dance with that girl... and then have to face the wrath of a horde of keyboard warriors. I can't even imagine she's equipped to handle that, and I'm not convinced her parents are any real help there either.
If Greta's focus is on Climate Change and trying to raise awareness, then I do not mind at all that she is doing this. That alone, shows me she has restraint and doesn't care about those sorts of things. Maybe, she actually really cares and is focused on wanting to solve these issues. It will be interesting how she will go on about doing that, and in what way now that is she an Adult and is not a child anymore, and has to face reality whether she likes it or not.
Some kids are more than capable of wanting to change things, and also do not care about those types of things. Myself, didn't care about prom at all, or graduating, but my parents and the people around me did. So I went to graduation, and to prom, not because they wanted me to, but because I myself wanted to experience these for myself. And it's not all that. I went in knowing it's not a big deal, nor did I make it one for myself enough to stress over it.
Maybe she isn't concerned about these things and has a strong back enough to take those Social Media bullys, and knows and understands, how those are words, and how you can actually report someone for threats, regardless of online or social media. IF you, yourself feel threatened, then report it to the right authorities.
I guess, things related to her childhood really doesn't matter at all anymore though, because she is 18 now. As I said above, It will be interesting to see where she goes from here. And how she chooses to help solve this issue or raise awareness to it.
I will also say, I do hope she has a hard back and is strong enough to not let the "Social Media Mobs" get to her. There's other ways besides Social Media where you can make an actual, real life difference. Actually, going on Social Media isn't the way to do it, because you also have to be out there doing something if you are going to be spewing on Social Media because posting on Social Media doesn't help solve anything. It's not having any affect in real life, until you make it happen in real life.
-
The hate is real. (not here)
Go on Twitter and read the comments under anything she posts. ANYTHING she posts. Everything she posts. Read any post on anyone's board ABOUT her and you'll get it, no holds barred.
If I were her parent, I'd be worried some nut job is planning to blow her head off for having the audacity to speak out on climate change. That is the level of hate she gets.
Her parents too, BTW.
Twitter is turning into a cesspool though. It's not just Greta. It's ANYONE that sees something that challenges their world view. For some reason, in my "feed" (is that what it's called? Am I hashtagging?) all I seem to get is the liberal screeds, so I don't see much of the right wing stuff. But I know it's there, and either way it's nauseating, and it's enough to make me consider deactivating my account on almost a daily basis. (Then I get something from Gene Simmons or Cram or King, and I forget to.)
Though having said that, that's part of what I was talking about above, and what my concern/complaint is. I'm very concerned that we - HUMANS, not kids - aren't equipped to handle the emotional burden of an international social media account. It's hard enough worrying about whether your boobies are big enough, or whether your always going to be four inches shorter than everyone else (I'm using sort of standard body image issues that kids face), or whether you're going to be asked to the prom, or whether you're going to have the courage to dance with that girl... and then have to face the wrath of a horde of keyboard warriors. I can't even imagine she's equipped to handle that, and I'm not convinced her parents are any real help there either.
Agree about Twitter being a cesspool.
But regardless, she is now an adult. We can quibble about her being mentally equipped to handle that at age 18, but she certainly knows how to deactivate her account. She's withstood the bullying and hatred for years by this point. I don't see it phasing her now suddenly.
Plus, the bullies would only see it as a win for them.
It is her choice full stop. I support her choice - whatever that choice is - around her social media activity. So long as she doesn't violate the rules of the platform, she makes her own decisions.
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
Did you... did you just blame people for being the chosen victims of a terrorist?
Nah. I just gave one example as explanation why teens/kids shouldn't be politically active.
When it comes to politics there is TOO MUCH HATE and there is some SICK HATE that would drive someone to kill. Yep, it's the horrible thing but that shit happens. We don't live in the ideal world.
This is a bizarre take, you might as well say if 20 kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School hadn't been interested in learning stuff they'd still be alive today and so the conclusion is that kids shouldn't go to school. Teens and kids "shouldn't be politically active" because some lunatic might kill them? That's known as letting terrorists win by giving them what they want. Should Americans have cowered in their homes after 9/11 like bin Laden hoped they would?
As for Greta, I like her. The stereotype that's been built up of her is nothing like the reality from what I've been able to gather. For her age she's an intelligent and informed person, and also surprisingly witty. She seems to have more or less managed to keep her independent voice from the vultures who have tried to use her as a pawn (the usual suspects but I don't want to get into P/R territory). I think that she's grown up a lot in just a few short years. When she arrived on the scene she was a tad, let's say, strident and uncompromising, but she's shown maturity in dialing it back and tempering her passion for her cause with a more approachable and likeable personality. I admire her a lot.
-
I don't think teens/kids being into politics or politically active is a good thing at all.
You all know what happened in Norway in 2011, the whole world was in shock back then.
One extremist sick fucker Breivik committed a massacre on the island Utoya where he killed 69 people and out of those 69 people, 55 were under 20 (2 - aged 14, 7 - aged 15, 8 - aged 16, 16 - aged 17, 17 - aged 18 and 5 - aged 19). All those teens were members of Norwegian Labour Party.
If they weren't politically active they would be ALIVE and not the targets of one idiotic extremist!
Did you... did you just blame people for being the chosen victims of a terrorist?
Nah. I just gave one example as explanation why teens/kids shouldn't be politically active.
When it comes to politics there is TOO MUCH HATE and there is some SICK HATE that would drive someone to kill. Yep, it's the horrible thing but that shit happens. We don't live in the ideal world.
That is the dark part of being in politics and dealing with decisions that affect people. And then you add in the twisted ways Politicians attack each other, and in the past have actually gone to lengths to have one assassinated. It's all happened before, it's basically in all history of governments, including the Indigenous Cultures.
And here in the modern times, Social Media is used. And in this way, they get the people to turn on that politician. They get people riled to form a mob to do their dirty work for them.
And in these times, you have to have a hard sturdy back to be able to handle all the shit being thrown at you and that includes the threats. It's not an easy job nor was it ever easy. It's also a job that should be respected as it is one that has a Big Responsibility of dealing with the lives of people. Having respect is recognizing you're there for the people, not yourself.
That's why I see what you mean and agree, that this isn't something for teens to hey involved in. Because it's not easy, and for the faint of heart, and those easily broken.
-
I actually perused Greta's twitter since I don't know much about her today, and I was pretty impressed. We've seen the highlights of her scolding a room full of adults and things like that, but the issues I saw her platforming on her twitter were far more nuanced, and far less partisan to the corporate buzzworking of "climate change", than I'd have expected.
-
Greta is awesome! :heart
The hate she gets is sickening.
Yup, this. I really hope she follows through for the rest of her life with this activism, and gets the solid education to really back up her fire, she has the platform already.
The hate is disgusting, just seeing someone spew venom at a teen whose trying to shape her future by working hard and being dedicated is gross. Ironically, they're probably the same people who complain that kids are lazy and uninvolved, but when kids like Greta and the Parkland kids do get involved, they spit on them.
-
I actually perused Greta's twitter since I don't know much about her today, and I was pretty impressed. We've seen the highlights of her scolding a room full of adults and things like that, but the issues I saw her platforming on her twitter were far more nuanced, and far less partisan to the corporate buzzworking of "climate change", than I'd have expected.
That may be because she is maturing. I didnt know at 16 how to respond to my parents nevermind the UN. :lol
-
I'm talking young kids, not teenagers. Now most parents will talk about it and not push there kid to be an activist. That's what I mean by saying let kids be kids. Now if a kid says I want to do something about it then you nurture that child and let them expand in what they do in a small way. There is a difference from helping a young child learn and grow or pushing them into your grown up agenda.
Ok sure, that's all fine, but you'll hopefully understand why it didn't come across that way given this thread is about Greta and those descriptions don't apply to her.
-
Sure. J went off of a tangent but I did correct myself in another post saying Greta wanted this herself and Greta was struggling so this brought focus for her.
Or did you miss that?
-
The hate is real. (not here)
Go on Twitter and read the comments under anything she posts. ANYTHING she posts. Everything she posts. Read any post on anyone's board ABOUT her and you'll get it, no holds barred.
If I were her parent, I'd be worried some nut job is planning to blow her head off for having the audacity to speak out on climate change. That is the level of hate she gets.
Her parents too, BTW.
Twitter is turning into a cesspool though. It's not just Greta. It's ANYONE that sees something that challenges their world view. For some reason, in my "feed" (is that what it's called? Am I hashtagging?) all I seem to get is the liberal screeds, so I don't see much of the right wing stuff. But I know it's there, and either way it's nauseating, and it's enough to make me consider deactivating my account on almost a daily basis. (Then I get something from Gene Simmons or Cram or King, and I forget to.)
Though having said that, that's part of what I was talking about above, and what my concern/complaint is. I'm very concerned that we - HUMANS, not kids - aren't equipped to handle the emotional burden of an international social media account. It's hard enough worrying about whether your boobies are big enough, or whether your always going to be four inches shorter than everyone else (I'm using sort of standard body image issues that kids face), or whether you're going to be asked to the prom, or whether you're going to have the courage to dance with that girl... and then have to face the wrath of a horde of keyboard warriors. I can't even imagine she's equipped to handle that, and I'm not convinced her parents are any real help there either.
Agree about Twitter being a cesspool.
But regardless, she is now an adult. We can quibble about her being mentally equipped to handle that at age 18, but she certainly knows how to deactivate her account. She's withstood the bullying and hatred for years by this point. I don't see it phasing her now suddenly.
Plus, the bullies would only see it as a win for them.
It is her choice full stop. I support her choice - whatever that choice is - around her social media activity. So long as she doesn't violate the rules of the platform, she makes her own decisions.
And in case anyone cares, no matter what I've said about my concerns, what you just wrote I agree with 100% per cent. It IS her choice, and SHE gets to decide - within the law, and within the rules of the platform - how to respond.
-
Greta is awesome! :heart
The hate she gets is sickening.
Yup, this. I really hope she follows through for the rest of her life with this activism, and gets the solid education to really back up her fire, she has the platform already.
The hate is disgusting, just seeing someone spew venom at a teen whose trying to shape her future by working hard and being dedicated is gross. Ironically, they're probably the same people who complain that kids are lazy and uninvolved, but when kids like Greta and the Parkland kids do get involved, they spit on them.
Not to pick on you, Lonestar, but why do we always seem to have to go there? We can't say that. It SOUNDS good, and it certainly fits the worldview of some people - not saying you - but there is ZERO basis for saying that. It just feeds stereotypes and assumptions. There are a 100 reasons - some put forth here, NONE that I can tell by people who "complain that kids are lazy" or "spit on" them (metaphorically, I'm sure) - for expressing one's displeasure for what they read. We've accepted "hate" as a response to things we don't like/understand for a while now, and until we start accepting that it's not just the "them" that are spewing this kind of hate, it's never going to end. It's not an assumption, it's established human nature that we all have a rationalization for our own whatever (in this case "hate"), and that's what we need to start addressing. There IS no objective rationalization. Even with the best of intentions, my hate or your hate is no better than their hate.
-
Just an observation man, just my experience.
-
Just an observation man, just my experience.
I've seen it too.
Just because you don't like the sound of it doesn't mean that there is zero basis for saying it.
-
Yup. We can speak generally about bad behavior on "both sides". I can't comment on hate coming from the left, because I've never been around it. I'm uniquely positioned to comment on hate from "the right", because I was born and raised in it, and I have come to know that many times just how ugly the face is behind the mask of "concern". For everyone I've met that has some complicated rationalization for why someone like Greta can't talk about climate change, there's another person (or 6) that I know personally who is just nodding along going "uh huh" to whoever says the smartest sounding thing not requiring them to open their minds to any new way of thinking.
-
Okay. I'm going to respectfully disagree with all of that. I'd rather not get into specific examples, but you all know FULL WELL that if I got mugged by a [insert sub-demographic], and I called all of [sub-demographic] criminals, you'd not let me get away with the same generalization (and rightfully so, because I'd be wrong). Our personal experiences are, statistically, almost never valid representations of the wide demographic, no matter how emotionally resonating, or life-changing they may be.
Just because you don't like the sound of it doesn't mean that there is zero basis for saying it.
I made the comment because my initial thought is "just because you like the sound of it doesn't mean there is basis for saying it". I seem to see these types of comments a lot, but oddly don't have the same experience so it's jarring.
-
Not apples to apples. You saying you think all black people are monsters because a black person mugged you or something like that is way different than me asking nine out of 10 Christian Conservatives who I grew up around if they've really checked their biases before weighing in on the next culture war topic.
The difference is in throwing judgment at a community you are not a part of versus just taking some good faith steps to try and improve your own.
-
Not apples to apples. You saying you think all black people are monsters because a black person mugged you or something is way different than me asking nine out of 10 Christian Conservatives who I grew up around if they've really checked their biases before weighing in on the next culture war topic.
Is it, though? That's the point. I'm just saying that if we're to demand/expect the "Christian Conservatives" - or anyone else - to "check their biases", then we should all be willing to do the same. You're using your personal experience, and that's not something I can or will question, but I'm offering that as someone that occasionally falls within the "generalizations" made here, and yet almost always doesn't fit them, it's something to think about.
-
Furthermore, whether you agree or not really means nothing. Agree with what, that I've had these experiences?
I know that the community I was raised (a largely white, right, Catholic one) in is incredibly backwards and toxic, finding weird ways to make fun of or disparage somebody like Greta being one of the more innocuous manifestations of this.
If you really grew up and live in a community where guys aren't like this, I don't doubt you. I envy you.
All I can tell you is to report on what I personally see in MY experiences. You can dismiss my experiences, but please know that I am not dismissing YOUR experiences just because they were different than mine. As I said, I envy you. I wish I wasn't around so much right hate.
Edit: Just read your last post. And sure, I have evidently checked my biases, because I am who I am, despite where I came from, and the types of people and ideas that are constantly trying to influence me.
-
Furthermore, whether you agree or not really means nothing. Agree with what, that I've had these experiences?
I know that the community I was raised (a largely white, right, Catholic one) in is incredibly backwards and toxic, finding weird ways to make fun of or disparage somebody like Greta being one of the more innocuous manifestations of this.
If you really grew up and live in a community where guys aren't like this, I don't doubt you. I envy you.
All I can tell you is to report on what I personally see in MY experiences. You can dismiss my experiences, but please know that I am not dismissing YOUR experiences just because they were different than mine. As I said, I envy you. I wish I wasn't around so much right hate.
Edit: Just read your last post. And sure, I have evidently checked my biases, because I am who I am, despite where I came from, and the types of people and ideas that are constantly trying to influence me.
First of all, you're talking about YOUR specific experiences, and I'm talking about expanding those experiences broadly. I'm not at ALL talking about your particular upbringing (though I do find it interesting and sad, in the sense that no child should experience that). It's the next step: what I'm saying is that I'm white, Catholic, and if not "right", then certainly "right leaning" compared to the rest of the group here, and I don't fit your profile. That's it. That's all I'm saying. Count me as an outlier, if you want, but you - not me, you - have to deal with the data point that doesn't fit with your assumption. If you - collective, since I don't mean to single out you, Skeever - are good with extrapolating out and rationalizing the discrepancy, then have at it, but I'm simply pointing out that I see that as very similar to what it seems many here are being critical of, that is, making assumptions about this girl and responding with hate. To me that's "changing biases", not "checking them" (again, generally).
-
I find her slightly annoying but her message is good and considering the following she's been building over the last few years of people backing a legit good cause, it's hard to be critical of her. For everyone saying "She's just a girl she won't change anything" I think it's inspiring to have someone actually speaking out and trying to create a change.
-
Just an observation man, just my experience.
I've seen it too.
Just because you don't like the sound of it doesn't mean that there is zero basis for saying it.
Agree 1000%
I think she's a brave kid who, despite being on the autism spectrum, she's managed to get herself all the way to the United Nations General Assembly. That's pretty damned impressive to me, regardless of how much her parents may have influenced her. She's clearly intelligent, fascinating and inspiring. I can only hope that my grandkids grow up this confident, self-assured and passionate about what they believe in. Some kids are wise beyond their years. I don't know why that would bother...anyone.
In my opinion one of the ways in which our education system has failed our children is by NOT teaching civics like they used to. I think it would benefit us ALL if kids learned about civics before they graduate high school. A quick Google search seems to indicate that only 9 states in the US still require civics. To me, when you live in a democracy, you should be taught about how democracy works and how to participate in that democracy by voting.
-
I think the problem for me is that the culture war lines on Greta were already drawn before her first words were televised, and that's just how everything works here. Sure, there are outliers. But even if I ignore my own experiences I could probably predict with a 98% accuracy rate where someone falls on Greta based on their other views.
I mean, just look at this thread. We're on page three, and for all the "concern" I've yet to see anybody address any specific point she's made or action she has platformed. It's all very general. And that leads me to believe that people's opinions on her are not as informed or deliberate as they think.
-
That was supposed to be a direct reply to Stadler but 2 more posts were made while I was writing.
-
In response to the original thread question
She’s a squawky, noisy, opportunistic little gnat. Who ignores the realities of the world and just makes noise.
-
I think the problem for me is that the culture war lines on Greta were already drawn before her first words were televised, and that's just how everything works here. Sure, there are outliers. But even if I ignore my own experiences I could probably predict with a 98% accuracy rate where someone falls on Greta based on their other views.
I mean, just look at this thread. We're on page three, and for all the "concern" I've yet to see anybody address any specific point she's made or action she has platformed. It's all very general. And that leads me to believe that people's opinions on her are not as informed or deliberate as they think.
I think I've said in this thread that I did more reading on her. Found out she was the one with concerns about a green world and at early age and wasn't pushed by her parents and it actually helped her focus. She is the outlier that deserved to be helped with her want to be an environmental activist. She is rare and different. I could not do what she does. Someone on here said she's presented herself better with age. A calmer demeanor. She is gaining experience I'd assume speaking in public.
My original thoughts were youth in general and not exactly about Greta that are in her position. Sorry to confuse many on this. I'm passionate about children being children with what I've seen personally in my life and the damage it has done.
-
King, would you say that you believe that children are our future? That we should teach them well and let them lead the way? Maybe show them all the beauty they posses inside?
-
In response to the original thread question
She’s a squawky, noisy, opportunistic little gnat. Who ignores the realities of the world and just makes noise.
WOW - sounds like you're describing yourself.........
-
King, would you say that you believe that children are our future? That we should teach them well and let them lead the way? Maybe show them all the beauty they posses inside?
:lol Great, now the song is stuck in my head.
-
Honestly I prefer people like Boyan Slat who identified a problem and set out to fix it. What she's doing is just par for course on what a lot of people in power or the spot light do.....point, complain and whine about a hot topic or issue without offering anything real or tangible to fix it. Just draw some attention to themselves to smoke and mirror their way to looking like they give a :censored but all the while are really just part of the problem. Whether she likes it or not, she's been hijacked by a sect of people in power and exploited to the point of anytime I hear or see her I roll my eyes because behind it all she's just being used and has offered no real solution to anything but some generic 'we need to do this' quotes.
Give the attention and $$$ to those like Boyan who have taken initiative to actually try and do something and not just huff and puff about it.
-
Honestly I prefer people like Boyan Slat who identified a problem and set out to fix it. What she's doing is just par for course on what a lot of people in power or the spot light do.....point, complain and whine about a hot topic or issue without offering anything real or tangible to fix it. Just draw some attention to themselves to smoke and mirror their way to looking like they give a :censored but all the while are really just part of the problem. Whether she likes it or not, she's been hijacked by a sect of people in power and exploited to the point of anytime I hear or see her I roll my eyes because behind it all she's just being used and has offered no real solution to anything but some generic 'we need to do this' quotes.
Give the attention and $$$ to those like Boyan who have taken initiative to actually try and do something and not just huff and puff about it.
Yeah, because raising awareness about an issue that literally threatens the existence of mankind is not a very admirable thing to do at all. Fuck this little brat, right?
-
Honestly I prefer people like Boyan Slat who identified a problem and set out to fix it. What she's doing is just par for course on what a lot of people in power or the spot light do.....point, complain and whine about a hot topic or issue without offering anything real or tangible to fix it. Just draw some attention to themselves to smoke and mirror their way to looking like they give a :censored but all the while are really just part of the problem. Whether she likes it or not, she's been hijacked by a sect of people in power and exploited to the point of anytime I hear or see her I roll my eyes because behind it all she's just being used and has offered no real solution to anything but some generic 'we need to do this' quotes.
Give the attention and $$$ to those like Boyan who have taken initiative to actually try and do something and not just huff and puff about it.
Well how inconvenient for you that at the mere age of 16 she found something she's passionate about. She speaks out about it and she's part of the problem? Would you prefer she be "hijacked" by the other side who deny climate change because that IS a thing. Let's give this 18 year-old a little time to see where she goes but in the meantime - she speaks the truth.
-
Not sure what part of 'I prefer' is confusing?
Presentation is everything and 'I' perceive her as condescending and at times hateful. While the cause is certainly something that needs to be addressed I don't really connect at all with people when it feels like I'm being lectured instead of educated.
Well how inconvenient for you
Please....it's this type of response that can turn someone off from talking about something like this but I expect no less from the DTF faithful when it comes to a hot button topic. Nowhere in my post did I say or allude to it being 'inconvenient' for me. I simply expressed I respond better to people who take action rather than just talk about it. If her approach is your thing then it's your thing. Pretty sure the thread title is 'Your honest thoughts on Greta Thunberg?" Those are my honest thoughts....no need to get snippy.
Yeah, because raising awareness about an issue that literally threatens the existence of mankind is not a very admirable thing to do at all. Fuck this little brat, right?
C'mon Barry....seriously? Where in there did I specifically say 'F' her or the cause? Nowhere.
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
That's the thing, I'm not looking to blame her for what's happened to her message. I'm aware that she's been overtaken by a larger force looking to exploit her. Her 'message' is fine and legit. I get it. It's the powers that be that sauntered in and scooped her up that 'annoy' me and to no fault of her own.....now, when I see or hear her I can't help but roll my eyes and dismiss her due to her 'mainstream' status or whatever you want to call it.
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
That's the thing, I'm not looking to blame her for what's happened to her message. I'm aware that she's been overtaken by a larger force looking to exploit her. Her 'message' is fine and legit. I get it. It's the powers that be that sauntered in and scooped her up that 'annoy' me and to no fault of her own.....now, when I see or hear her I can't help but roll my eyes and dismiss her due to her 'mainstream' status or whatever you want to call it.
If that's your position then I'm good. Your earlier post, however, did not suggest that her position was fine and legit in the slightest, though. Far from it, in fact.
-
If that's your position then I'm good. Your earlier post, however, did not suggest that her position was fine and legit in the slightest, though. Far from it, in fact.
Well....the overall global warming conversation is legit and a conversation that needs to be had. My initial post was meant to state I don't find her to be the best spokesperson for that conversation given the way she delivers the message. Hijacked or not, she doesn't come across as inviting to have a conversation with....she's very off putting.
-
In response to the original thread question
She’s a squawky, noisy, opportunistic little gnat. Who ignores the realities of the world and just makes noise.
WOW - sounds like you're describing yourself.........
Hunnus, knock off the personal attacks. If you can't respond to an opinion you don't like without attacking the person who posted it, best to stay out of the thread.
-
The problem for me is that it doesn't matter if it's the Dixie Chicks, Michelle Obama, the Parkland teens, the Black Lives Matter mothers, Greta, or anyone else. The minute someone with a platform says something that annoys red blooded America, it's over. The low brow jokes and insults and other disparagements come out, and now the goalposts have moved from discussion of the issues to discussion of an individual person.
And that unfortunately is the nature that anyone who advocates for some kind of change is facing. I fully admit the "left" do the same thing, but here's the difference: the right are, traditionally, advocates of the status quo, while the left are the advocates of some kind of change. For those who don't want change, it doesn't matter if we burn up all of our time arguing about someone's demeanor or personality, that's just time to stall until the opposition either 1.) go away or 2.) the establishment find their preferred solution to the problem. The more time we spent arguing about whether Greta is a meanie or not is time not spent addressing global warming.
And that is why it is the right (which probably includes the democrats here in the US) have always been hungry for the culture war. It's basically just milking the clock, putting the issues on the backburner until one party stumbles upon the politically viable "solution", probably the one the opposition were happy with all along. So, here we are. NetZero goals, "certified environmentally friendly" stickers on tablets, and a bunch of other nonsense that won't stop the seas from boiling.
-
In response to the original thread question
She’s a squawky, noisy, opportunistic little gnat. Who ignores the realities of the world and just makes noise.
WOW - sounds like you're describing yourself.........
Hunnus, knock off the personal attacks. If you can't respond to an opinion you don't like without attacking the person who posted it, best to stay out of the thread.
OK - let me try this - given the posters original opinion, it sounds as though his opinion of said activist is no different than the opinion he just gave without reason. So I am willing to ask, why is said activist an "opportunistic little gnat"? Maybe a little context would help me understand.
That better Bosk?
-
There are certain topics that are guaranteed to bring out the worst in us. All of us. This is one of them. I've seen this since 2005 when I joined MP'S forum.
As I said earlier, Greta firmly believes that only 1 or 2 generations will survive climate change. That is her bedrock belief. She is frightened and angry. I wish someone whom she respected would let her know, that unless the sun explodes, or an asteroid impacts the Earth, that is not reality.
The cause is worthy but her doomy outlook needs a recalibration.
-
I heard something the other day on a radio talk show that really stuck out to me. The 'save the planet' mantra is really the wrong way to approach this because well......the planet is not really in any danger. Yes, global warming.....animal species going extinct due to direct issues that man causes.....these are all valid points and happening. BUT....the planet and the species on it will survive and adapt. This really should be a 'save mankind' approach because it's us who are on the verge of extinction. The planet will be just fine.....what's happening now is just a large scale version of a broken bone or some sort of head cold for a person. Sucks when it happens but you get through it. Earth in the long run will be fine.
-
Not sure what part of 'I prefer' is confusing?
Presentation is everything and 'I' perceive her as condescending and at times hateful. While the cause is certainly something that needs to be addressed I don't really connect at all with people when it feels like I'm being lectured instead of educated.
Well how inconvenient for you
Please....it's this type of response that can turn someone off from talking about something like this but I expect no less from the DTF faithful when it comes to a hot button topic. Nowhere in my post did I say or allude to it being 'inconvenient' for me. I simply expressed I respond better to people who take action rather than just talk about it. If her approach is your thing then it's your thing. Pretty sure the thread title is 'Your honest thoughts on Greta Thunberg?" Those are my honest thoughts....no need to get snippy.
Yeah, because raising awareness about an issue that literally threatens the existence of mankind is not a very admirable thing to do at all. Fuck this little brat, right?
C'mon Barry....seriously? Where in there did I specifically say 'F' her or the cause? Nowhere.
WOW - I thought Greta was taking action at a young age the best that she could with the resources at her disposal and you don't recognize that she's at least doing something?
BTW, I was not being snippy but I was answering and challenging your statement. I can talk about these opposing topics all day long without taking offense but it's rare that I find others that can.
-
I heard something the other day on a radio talk show that really stuck out to me. The 'save the planet' mantra is really the wrong way to approach this because well......the planet is not really in any danger. Yes, global warming.....animal species going extinct due to direct issues that man causes.....these are all valid points and happening. BUT....the planet and the species on it will survive and adapt. This really should be a 'save mankind' approach because it's us who are on the verge of extinction. The planet will be just fine.....what's happening now is just a large scale version of a broken bone or some sort of head cold for a person. Sucks when it happens but you get through it. Earth in the long run will be fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJsdgTPJpU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJsdgTPJpU)
This video has 69K likes and 47K dislikes, that means that Greta is polarizing among people, many people like/support her and also many people dislike her.
What are your views about this girl? Is she RIGHT or WRONG with her speeches and activities?
I probably live under a rock, but I've seen the name and her on the news, but truthfully, I have no idea who she is and no idea what she's on about and couldn't give two fucks about what she has to say either. If for some reason I should watch this, let me know and I'll consider.
-
I heard something the other day on a radio talk show that really stuck out to me. The 'save the planet' mantra is really the wrong way to approach this because well......the planet is not really in any danger. Yes, global warming.....animal species going extinct due to direct issues that man causes.....these are all valid points and happening. BUT....the planet and the species on it will survive and adapt. This really should be a 'save mankind' approach because it's us who are on the verge of extinction. The planet will be just fine.....what's happening now is just a large scale version of a broken bone or some sort of head cold for a person. Sucks when it happens but you get through it. Earth in the long run will be fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
:clap: Thanks for that. Pretty much sums it up. Looks like I’ll have to go down a George Carlin rabbit hole tonight.
-
George Carlin is a genius.
-
That was actually from '92, before we really thought about global warming, which was a shame as his premise would have worked much better. Living organisms get rid of hostile bodies by raising their temperature. I've read that honey bees learned to microwave murder hornets to death, FFS. The Earth running a fever would have worked better than creating AIDS.
Still, great bit.
-
I saw Carlin in 92. I bought his 7 durty words poster that was expanded to over 1000. :lol
-
As I said earlier, Greta firmly believes that only 1 or 2 generations will survive climate change. That is her bedrock belief. She is frightened and angry. I wish someone whom she respected would let her know, that unless the sun explodes, or an asteroid impacts the Earth, that is not reality.
While of course it's never wise to exagerate things or panic, what's the downside of trying to reduce pollution and gasses emissions on the planet? even if we won't literally die or starve in a Mad Max scenario, is it that futile to try to get rid Asia of the brown cloud that oppresses half the continent, or postpone - if it's in our hands - the further melting of ice which would mean not having to relocate people from costal towns?
I mean... "I've quit smoking because I was absolutely certain I would be dead at 50. Now I found out that many smokers live a normal life into old age. I've adopted a healthier lifestyle, rid my lungs of bad substances and saved on money I will no longer spend on cigarettes for nothing!"
-
I said it was a worthy cause...right?
The downside for Gretta and those who feel similarly, is that she lives every day under that mental weight. It's similar to receiving a terminal diagnosis. And if you're already a worrier, have trouble processing stress, or on the spectrum, the quality of your life is greatly impacted.
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
Gary is right about one thing though: this conversation is a microcosm of the way that issues are debated, at least here in the States, and it's a fuckin' disaster. Hyperbole on this side, hyperbole on that side, and the main issue gets lost in the shuffle.
Even in the most extreme scenarios, mankind is not going extinct in the next generation or two, and in fact, not likely at all (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climate-change-human-civilization-existential-risk). The likely response - still bad, don't get me wrong - is that hundreds of millions of people die, and our lifestyle and culture is irreparably changed. Shoreline communities will disappear, but MAN will not, except at the most fringe of the continuum of likely outcomes.
That means, of course, that while it's not up for discussion about whether climate change exists, it is VERY MUCH up for discussion how bad it will get, and what is the solution - if there even is one at this point - for stemming that decline (I say that because we've likely crossed the rubicon on keeping temperature changes below the previously established threshold of 20C). The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action. We - humans - aren't wired that way, and ask any one that still smokes about that, or that drinks the devil's semen diet soda. The "mankind will be extinct" is the climate change version of "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed" and "your healthcare will be decided by Death PanelsTM".
I think we have to be careful not to confuse the issue with the analysis; I have zero doubt that climate change exists. I am in no way, shape or form a "denier"; having said that, I DO NOT believe the worst case is inevitable, and do not believe we are extinct in two generations, or 30 years, or whatever the fear tactic of the moment is. I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns. The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically. The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.
-
The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action.
We don't need to look further than the current pandemic as a proof of this.
Pandemics already happened in the past. The latest one only a century ago. The SARS outbreak no longer than 20 years ago was a coronavirus. The causes for new pandemics were long known. It was a long, long time coming.
If Greta or even Al Gore would have spoken about it, what would have happened? if Al Gore made his life mission after 2003 and the SARS close call to educate as many people as possible as the very real danger of a disastrous pandemic, who would have cared for what he had to say? who would have imagined that we'd have to stop the world, even skip the Olympic games, given that the last time they were cancelled or moved, Adolf Hitler was still alive?
Let's admit it, no one of us, even those who took seriously the pandemic from day 1, would have imagined that this would have happened. And I have no doubt that the only thing that will make climate change everyone's priority will be a giant-ass piece of Antarctica detaching from the mainland, I mean a record breaking. "as big as 10 countries put together" iceberg. Only when Venice or Miami will be under water we'll truly realize the dangers of climate change. (Maybe it won't happen, or it won't happen in our lifetime but... would have anyone of us believed that a virus woud have locked the world inside their homes and cancelled big sporting events?)
-
I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns. The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically. The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.
I agree with this, and it's almost laughable to think that (as some idealists like Liz Warren have suggestion) the US government 1.) could or 2.) would do anything at all to lead on this issue. Even if it actually wanted to, there is a major question of capability.
In my mind, it's almost a moot point. While 5 American billionaires argue through their media networks about what to do over the next three decades, China will have decided to make the investment and will be busy selling the solution to all its densely crowded neighbors in Africa, the pacific islands, and on the South Asian shoreline (all of our old friends, all expected to be at the forefront of the effects of climate change). Then when the climate doom catches up to us, we'll be at a total loss for what to do still, if the dying carcass of our burearacratic oligarchy is even capable of doing anything at all, and I guess at that point we'll get to decide whether we are willing to bend the knee to our new overlords in Beijing or not.
I guess this topic definitely belongs in PR now. Maybe for the best, so that I get to stay away from it :lol
-
WOW - I thought Greta was taking action at a young age the best that she could with the resources at her disposal and you don't recognize that she's at least doing something?
BTW, I was not being snippy but I was answering and challenging your statement. I can talk about these opposing topics all day long without taking offense but it's rare that I find others that can.
I say this to you and partly to Skeever (in his earlier post, not the one right above) too; "at least doing something" doesn't move the needle, though. I feel obligated to say that "status quo" isn't always bad, particularly when the "change" is simply change for the sake of change, or a way of achieving a different, more subtle agenda. This is in large part why Barry thinks I perpetually side with the "conservatives"; because too often, too much of the proposed "progress" - even if I believe in the objective - doesn't answer the bell. Just by way of example, there's an argument that: guns; the generally proposed measures won't do a damn thing to stop someone who has it in their head that the answer to their problems is killing someone else. This is not opinion, it is PROVEN. Australia. Washington DC. (They WOULD though, move to break the economic power of the NRA; reps and senators that vote conservative on guns ALSO vote conservative on OTHER issues). Healthcare; the generally proposed measure (adopted) did NOT achieve lower cost healthcare for people, it did NOT achieve better outcomes for people, it did NOT solve the prescription drug issue, it did NOT break the employer/insurance nexus, it did NOT remove the state-by-state regulation that hampers cost effectiveness, and only partially - and under penalty of IRS enforcement - reduce the number of uninsureds. (It would though, provide a broader, more systemic way of reallocating wealth.)
I don't know that I believe ALL of that above, or that any of it is necessarily bad, but it's certainly something that has to be discussed before we can blanket determine that it's as simple as "wanting change" or "not wanting change". There are plenty of people that aren't interested in letting politicians "feel good" and advertise as having "done something" that doesn't move the needle for real folk on the ground (see El Barto's summary of the recent gun law changes pushed by Joe Biden. Almost entirely "all show, no go".)
-
That's just it, though. How much longer do we throw our hands up on every single issue before we come around to the conclusion that we aren't leading on anything anymore? By the way, "status quo" doesn't really exist - you're either progressing or regressing. We've seen how that works on the worldwide scale (our influence is clearly diminishing), and the domestic agenda is next. Biden made it sound like we might be able to provide people with "clean water" again one day last night. How inspiring. What's next?
That's where conservatives need to realize that the endless himming-and-hawing only hurts the thing they claim to care most about in the end - American exceptionality. We can do "nothing" about climate change, or else come up with some soft incentives that don't really accomplish much. Fine with me. Someone will lead on it, because the global economy is at stake. It just won't be us. In my mind, the ship has sailed on whether it still can be or not. The only question left on the table is "why should anyone care"?
-
WOW - I thought Greta was taking action at a young age the best that she could with the resources at her disposal and you don't recognize that she's at least doing something?
BTW, I was not being snippy but I was answering and challenging your statement. I can talk about these opposing topics all day long without taking offense but it's rare that I find others that can.
I say this to you and partly to Skeever (in his earlier post, not the one right above) too; "at least doing something" doesn't move the needle, though. I feel obligated to say that "status quo" isn't always bad, particularly when the "change" is simply change for the sake of change, or a way of achieving a different, more subtle agenda. This is in large part why Barry thinks I perpetually side with the "conservatives"; because too often, too much of the proposed "progress" - even if I believe in the objective - doesn't answer the bell. Just by way of example, there's an argument that: guns; the generally proposed measures won't do a damn thing to stop someone who has it in their head that the answer to their problems is killing someone else. This is not opinion, it is PROVEN. Australia. Washington DC. (They WOULD though, move to break the economic power of the NRA; reps and senators that vote conservative on guns ALSO vote conservative on OTHER issues). Healthcare; the generally proposed measure (adopted) did NOT achieve lower cost healthcare for people, it did NOT achieve better outcomes for people, it did NOT solve the prescription drug issue, it did NOT break the employer/insurance nexus, it did NOT remove the state-by-state regulation that hampers cost effectiveness, and only partially - and under penalty of IRS enforcement - reduce the number of uninsureds. (It would though, provide a broader, more systemic way of reallocating wealth.)
I don't know that I believe ALL of that above, or that any of it is necessarily bad, but it's certainly something that has to be discussed before we can blanket determine that it's as simple as "wanting change" or "not wanting change". There are plenty of people that aren't interested in letting politicians "feel good" and advertise as having "done something" that doesn't move the needle for real folk on the ground (see El Barto's summary of the recent gun law changes pushed by Joe Biden. Almost entirely "all show, no go".)
There's nothing here I disagree with. Every time I hear "thoughts and prayers" I want to rip my hair out. However, I am not inclined to look at a 16 year old and say that her words are useless without action. Activism comes in all forms even if it's just education.
-
Here's something that is being done and is being implemented and is getting the Youth to actually learn about the environment and actually give them work.
The Tribal Youth Coastal Restoration Program will help fund projects run by the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creek Indians and the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. Each Tribe has proposed its own teaching and experiential learning opportunities to prepare students to understand and respect the natural environment, such as native plant restoration, site cleanup, and water and soil sampling.
Participants will be encouraged to pursue additional courses and degree programs that will enable them to pursue careers in natural resources conservation. The activities also provide skills needed to work on restoration throughout the Gulf and engage the Native Gulf community in the larger restoration effort.
The Tribal Youth Coastal Restoration Program was initially approved by the RESTORE Council in 2015 and trained 239 students in five tribes, who restored 995 acres. The program's success led the 11-member RESTORE Council, which includes Gulf state and federal members, to unanimously approve this three-year program, which builds on the initial investment and adds the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.
https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/sec-deb-haaland-announces-funding-for-six-tribal-youth-environmental-and-economic-empowerment-projects
This is actually doing something about Climate Change.
What we humans, mainly the Colonizers, do and did affected the way climate changes. From depleting the World of its resources, and spewing them in the air, it caused the Earth to become sick. And in reality, Earth will heal herself of the virus, it is its own immune system.
Everything we do has consequences, it's what we Natives knew and understood and why we don't have these technologies. Well, we did once, but used it to for war. We knew we had capabilities far beyond what we do now, but it was taken because of how we used that power. We know of these things because it has happened before. These are in our oral stories, and the evidence is there in our ruins.
The Earth has healed herself many times before, and many times, humans migrated and ended up living somewhere more habitable. Humans will survive, the same as many animals have survived.
If all things on Earth have life, we humans are killing life, of animals, seas, plants, and dirt, and most of all ourselves.
-
That's just it, though. How much longer do we throw our hands up on every single issue before we come around to the conclusion that we aren't leading on anything anymore? By the way, "status quo" doesn't really exist - you're either progressing or regressing. We've seen how that works on the worldwide scale (our influence is clearly diminishing), and the domestic agenda is next. Biden made it sound like we might be able to provide people with "clean water" again one day last night. How inspiring. What's next?
I agree with this a lot, and like the strategic thinking (nothing is in a vacuum).
That's where conservatives need to realize that the endless himming-and-hawing only hurts the thing they claim to care most about in the end - American exceptionality. We can do "nothing" about climate change, or else come up with some soft incentives that don't really accomplish much. Fine with me. Someone will lead on it, because the global economy is at stake. It just won't be us. In my mind, the ship has sailed on whether it still can be or not. The only question left on the table is "why should anyone care"?
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Climate change is not one of those issues that one can "lead" on in the sense that I think we use that term here in the States. It's an issue we ALL solve or we don't. It's like being half-pregnant. There are not borders to it, there are not jurisdictions. The pollution in Beijing affects US, the pollution in New York affects Europe, the pollution in Russia affects China, and on across the globe. China "outpollutes" us by a factor of two (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions). We - the U.S. - only account for about 15% of global CO2 emissions (same source).
Any solution that doesn't obliterate borders is not going to be successful, and we CAN'T lead, because the economic burden would cripple us in short order. I sell trains; I'm already at an economic disadvantage when we bid against Chinese firms, not least of which because they can meet ANY price. ANY price (because the government will subsidize any COGS or infrastructure requirements to make the deal work). Now add an additional global environmental burden on U.S. firms, but don't do the same to the Chinese and the divide widens. I don't know what your sport is, but imagine if your team, in the interest of, say, reducing CTE decided to wear steel braces from the back of their thighs up to past their head and wrap their heads in foam, but the other team didn't. Sure, they'd be safer, but before long they'd be bankrupt because they cannot keep pace. It's kind of akin to the doping in cycling as well; we'd LIKE to be better, to be more pure, but unless ALL riders are on the same baseline, it's a futile gesture.
-
WOW - I thought Greta was taking action at a young age the best that she could with the resources at her disposal and you don't recognize that she's at least doing something?
BTW, I was not being snippy but I was answering and challenging your statement. I can talk about these opposing topics all day long without taking offense but it's rare that I find others that can.
I say this to you and partly to Skeever (in his earlier post, not the one right above) too; "at least doing something" doesn't move the needle, though. I feel obligated to say that "status quo" isn't always bad, particularly when the "change" is simply change for the sake of change, or a way of achieving a different, more subtle agenda. This is in large part why Barry thinks I perpetually side with the "conservatives"; because too often, too much of the proposed "progress" - even if I believe in the objective - doesn't answer the bell. Just by way of example, there's an argument that: guns; the generally proposed measures won't do a damn thing to stop someone who has it in their head that the answer to their problems is killing someone else. This is not opinion, it is PROVEN. Australia. Washington DC. (They WOULD though, move to break the economic power of the NRA; reps and senators that vote conservative on guns ALSO vote conservative on OTHER issues). Healthcare; the generally proposed measure (adopted) did NOT achieve lower cost healthcare for people, it did NOT achieve better outcomes for people, it did NOT solve the prescription drug issue, it did NOT break the employer/insurance nexus, it did NOT remove the state-by-state regulation that hampers cost effectiveness, and only partially - and under penalty of IRS enforcement - reduce the number of uninsureds. (It would though, provide a broader, more systemic way of reallocating wealth.)
I don't know that I believe ALL of that above, or that any of it is necessarily bad, but it's certainly something that has to be discussed before we can blanket determine that it's as simple as "wanting change" or "not wanting change". There are plenty of people that aren't interested in letting politicians "feel good" and advertise as having "done something" that doesn't move the needle for real folk on the ground (see El Barto's summary of the recent gun law changes pushed by Joe Biden. Almost entirely "all show, no go".)
There's nothing here I disagree with. Every time I hear "thoughts and prayers" I want to rip my hair out. However, I am not inclined to look at a 16 year old and say that her words are useless without action. Activism comes in all forms even if it's just education.
It's good to have thoughts and prayers. But that only does so much, and it's effect takes time.
It's why, we have freewill, to actually do something, and put those thoughts and prayers into action. My native people never just prayed for things, we understand you also have to put in the work to receive those blessings. It's the same as the Amish, and why they live that lifestyle, for their prayers will be answered if they put in the work. It's also not easy work.
The creator is not lazy. It's why Idle hands are the Devil's Playground.
It's why I say as well, people need to have Self-Responsibility. It's like being an activist and just spewing words on social media and speaking on a podium, most activists I follow and know are actually out there in the streets, doing volunteer work, and doing things for their community besides just Soapboxing.
Immortal Technique just doesn't make hip-hop music. He is one whom actually is out there, volunteering himself and taking his own time to help people. People can't even be bothered to take their own time to do this.
I have mad respect for people that actually take their own time to do these things. Rather then, just spewing shit online and not doing anything.
Greta could start getting her own classmates and think of something to do that will benefit the planet.
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
-
I heard something the other day on a radio talk show that really stuck out to me. The 'save the planet' mantra is really the wrong way to approach this because well......the planet is not really in any danger. Yes, global warming.....animal species going extinct due to direct issues that man causes.....these are all valid points and happening. BUT....the planet and the species on it will survive and adapt. This really should be a 'save mankind' approach because it's us who are on the verge of extinction. The planet will be just fine.....what's happening now is just a large scale version of a broken bone or some sort of head cold for a person. Sucks when it happens but you get through it. Earth in the long run will be fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Oh man, I haven't watched this in a long time. SO SPOT ON STILL. Absolutely amazing how this stands the test of time.
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
Gary is right about one thing though: this conversation is a microcosm of the way that issues are debated, at least here in the States, and it's a fuckin' disaster. Hyperbole on this side, hyperbole on that side, and the main issue gets lost in the shuffle.
Even in the most extreme scenarios, mankind is not going extinct in the next generation or two, and in fact, not likely at all (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climate-change-human-civilization-existential-risk). The likely response - still bad, don't get me wrong - is that hundreds of millions of people die, and our lifestyle and culture is irreparably changed. Shoreline communities will disappear, but MAN will not, except at the most fringe of the continuum of likely outcomes.
That means, of course, that while it's not up for discussion about whether climate change exists, it is VERY MUCH up for discussion how bad it will get, and what is the solution - if there even is one at this point - for stemming that decline (I say that because we've likely crossed the rubicon on keeping temperature changes below the previously established threshold of 20C). The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action. We - humans - aren't wired that way, and ask any one that still smokes about that, or that drinks the devil's semen diet soda. The "mankind will be extinct" is the climate change version of "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed" and "your healthcare will be decided by Death PanelsTM".
I think we have to be careful not to confuse the issue with the analysis; I have zero doubt that climate change exists. I am in no way, shape or form a "denier"; having said that, I DO NOT believe the worst case is inevitable, and do not believe we are extinct in two generations, or 30 years, or whatever the fear tactic of the moment is. I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns. The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically. The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.
I may very well have missed it, but when did Greta Thunberg say "mankind will be extinct in the next generation or two?" You're ripping on hyperbole with...hyperbole?
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
-
If she was 35, we wouldn't know who she is.
Unless her name was Sandy.
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
That's a highly odd thing to focus on.
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
Gary is right about one thing though: this conversation is a microcosm of the way that issues are debated, at least here in the States, and it's a fuckin' disaster. Hyperbole on this side, hyperbole on that side, and the main issue gets lost in the shuffle.
Even in the most extreme scenarios, mankind is not going extinct in the next generation or two, and in fact, not likely at all (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climate-change-human-civilization-existential-risk). The likely response - still bad, don't get me wrong - is that hundreds of millions of people die, and our lifestyle and culture is irreparably changed. Shoreline communities will disappear, but MAN will not, except at the most fringe of the continuum of likely outcomes.
That means, of course, that while it's not up for discussion about whether climate change exists, it is VERY MUCH up for discussion how bad it will get, and what is the solution - if there even is one at this point - for stemming that decline (I say that because we've likely crossed the rubicon on keeping temperature changes below the previously established threshold of 20C). The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action. We - humans - aren't wired that way, and ask any one that still smokes about that, or that drinks the devil's semen diet soda. The "mankind will be extinct" is the climate change version of "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed" and "your healthcare will be decided by Death PanelsTM".
I think we have to be careful not to confuse the issue with the analysis; I have zero doubt that climate change exists. I am in no way, shape or form a "denier"; having said that, I DO NOT believe the worst case is inevitable, and do not believe we are extinct in two generations, or 30 years, or whatever the fear tactic of the moment is. I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns. The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically. The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.
I may very well have missed it, but when did Greta Thunberg say "mankind will be extinct in the next generation or two?" You're ripping on hyperbole with...hyperbole?
Well, it was said earlier in this very thread. Even if it is an inappropriate reference to her specifically (and I'm not going to hang a fellow poster out to dry to make my point), it's not my hyperbole; it's a fairly common trope based on the predicted time for a certain level of temperature rise, as my cited article indicates. The point wasn't to hyperbolize HER position, but rather to state generally that the impacts of climate change are frequently over-stated.
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.
We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to me too. Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
That's a highly odd thing to focus on.
Is it though? There's a veritable cottage industry mocking Trump's facial expressions during speeches. He was only the President of the United States, and yet...
(Though I'm sure there will be a rationalization for that...)
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
-
:lol
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.
We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to me too. Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.
We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
That's a highly odd thing to focus on.
Is it though?
Yes.
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here. We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves. If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not. (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd. Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.
We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to me too. Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.
We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.
It's certainly in keeping, though. "Facts" and "science", as long as the facts and science back up the world view. :) :)
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here. We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves. If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not. (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd. Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)
But we are talking about Greta and Trump. We are also talking about people making comments about them. I merely pointed out there is a difference between Greta and Trumps behavior , and that to some, that difference opens up Trump to get some of what he dishes out. If you want to say no one should make those comments regardless, that is ok, but that is not the reality of the situation. I just pointed that reality out is all.
I agree that, in a vacuum, the behavior is “wrong” so to speak, but we don’t live in a Dyson.
Like it or not, there is a difference. I look differently on one person than I do another due to their own actions/words. TBH I’m not really sure we disagree here, do we?
-
I was going to type up a response to GMD, but I'd just be piling on at this point. What I will say is that I'd never heard of Boyan Slat before. Whether or not that's good or bad I don't know, but I can certainly say he's not inspiring anybody. Here's the bigger deal, though. Plastic Island is a phenomenon we can see. We know it's real. It's tangible. Global warming is something that's still, for some reason, debated. It's not readily apparent, and if you're a dipshit, then it's hard to distinguish between global warming and simple weather. See Trump. "Wow, it sure is cold this winter. So much for global warming."
Here's something that bugs me, though. Wildranger, quite bizarrely, blames the fact that some youth were politically minded for their slaughter at the hand of some politically minded asshole. I think we can all agree that this is fucking stupid. Is that really any different to what's happening to Greta, though? Aren't we blaming her for the person others have made her out to be? If there's a hijacking, shouldn't we blame the hijackers instead of the people who just wanted to fly to Paris? Once we get to that point, though, it becomes much easier to dismiss the message, though, and I'm pretty sure that's the point.
Girl says something. Media elevates her to Jesus status. People blame her. Girl says something else. People "roll their eyes" because of how annoying she's become. Makes sense.
At in typing this, I answered my own question. It's best that we haven't heard of Boyan Slat, because then his message would be just as easily dismissed.
Gary is right about one thing though: this conversation is a microcosm of the way that issues are debated, at least here in the States, and it's a fuckin' disaster. Hyperbole on this side, hyperbole on that side, and the main issue gets lost in the shuffle.
Even in the most extreme scenarios, mankind is not going extinct in the next generation or two, and in fact, not likely at all (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climate-change-human-civilization-existential-risk). The likely response - still bad, don't get me wrong - is that hundreds of millions of people die, and our lifestyle and culture is irreparably changed. Shoreline communities will disappear, but MAN will not, except at the most fringe of the continuum of likely outcomes.
That means, of course, that while it's not up for discussion about whether climate change exists, it is VERY MUCH up for discussion how bad it will get, and what is the solution - if there even is one at this point - for stemming that decline (I say that because we've likely crossed the rubicon on keeping temperature changes below the previously established threshold of 20C). The fact is, in America - and perhaps the world - "hey, this MIGHT happen" is not a recipe for quick and decisive action. We - humans - aren't wired that way, and ask any one that still smokes about that, or that drinks the devil's semen diet soda. The "mankind will be extinct" is the climate change version of "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed" and "your healthcare will be decided by Death PanelsTM".
I think we have to be careful not to confuse the issue with the analysis; I have zero doubt that climate change exists. I am in no way, shape or form a "denier"; having said that, I DO NOT believe the worst case is inevitable, and do not believe we are extinct in two generations, or 30 years, or whatever the fear tactic of the moment is. I also don't accept many of the proposed solutions to this (I'm speaking primarily here in the United States), particularly the ones that dovetail nicely with other, unrelated political party concerns. The answer to climate change is not "wealth reallocation", it's not "punishing corporate America", and it's not America unilaterally bearing the burden of a "Green New Deal" while China and Russian bludgeon us economically. The answer lies in a uniform, unified GLOBAL approach that cooperatively responds to the crisis in a way that doesn't advantage one geo-political axis over another.
I may very well have missed it, but when did Greta Thunberg say "mankind will be extinct in the next generation or two?" You're ripping on hyperbole with...hyperbole?
Well, it was said earlier in this very thread. Even if it is an inappropriate reference to her specifically (and I'm not going to hang a fellow poster out to dry to make my point), it's not my hyperbole; it's a fairly common trope based on the predicted time for a certain level of temperature rise, as my cited article indicates. The point wasn't to hyperbolize HER position, but rather to state generally that the impacts of climate change are frequently over-stated.
The word "extinct" appears in 3 posts (now 4) in this thread and two of them are mine, the other two are people saying the opposite: That anyone claiming "mankind will be extinct in a couple of generations" is full of it. I just did both a google search and I used the forum search tool trying to find a post in this thread where Greta Thunberg said "mankind will be extinct in two generations" and I can't find it. Can you refer me to the post please? It's entirely possible the search didn't work right, but I do know how to use a search feature, so?
-
Just throwing this out there - scientists have never said we will destroy the world because of climate change, they say that life will be more uncomfortable and we will be spending lot's of money on disasters. Unlike conservatives who quote the Bible for reasons not to take action.
BTW, I am paraphrasing what Neil Degrasse T. said one time.
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here. We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves. If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not. (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd. Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)
But we are talking about Greta and Trump. We are also talking about people making comments about them. I merely pointed out there is a difference between Greta and Trumps behavior , and that to some, that difference opens up Trump to get some of what he dishes out. If you want to say no one should make those comments regardless, that is ok, but that is not the reality of the situation. I just pointed that reality out is all.
I agree that, in a vacuum, the behavior is “wrong” so to speak, but we don’t live in a Dyson.
Like it or not, there is a difference. I look differently on one person than I do another due to their own actions/words. TBH I’m not really sure we disagree here, do we?
Not fundamentally, no. It's just a do-loop that has no end. I'm always leery when the rules are so heavily predicated on one person's personal perception (I'm not talking about you, I'm speaking generally, and just explaining why I said what I said.) Remember too, I'm the guy that is convinced that our biggest problem is our divisiveness, not any one side or their platform.
-
In response to the original thread question
She’s a squawky, noisy, opportunistic little gnat. Who ignores the realities of the world and just makes noise.
That's what I thought when I first saw the video. You were a lot nicer about it than I would've been, so I won't even go there. However, I think someone should educate her by tapping her on the shoulder and saying, "hey Greta, climate change has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. It changes in cycles regardless of what we do. It's a part of the natural order. All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it? :lol It's a self correcting system over long periods of time. We've only been here for a blink. The dinosaurs survived through climate change for 150 million years. Until of course the comet hit which started a chain reaction of catastrophic events that they couldn't survive. Humans will most likely face disasters in the future that are out of our control. All the whining and crying in the world isn't going to change a thing, but hey, knock yourself out." :rollin
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V
Models have weird facial expressions as well.
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here. We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves. If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not. (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd. Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)
Are you talking about two different things perhaps? You mentioned people "mocking" Trump's expressions, which is one thing (a bit childish, but teasing and impersonating the mannerisms of politicians is pretty standard). But if you mean people talking about his appearance and expressions as a serious criticism of him, then yes that is also odd. It's odd whoever it's about.
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V
Models have weird facial expressions as well.
The duck face. Whoever invented that ought to be fired. I can't name one person/celebrity/model that looks better with the duck face. Then again, I'm a "smile" guy; I'm sure someone somewhere must've said "hey that looks good on you!".
-
I know many people find her facial expressions during speeches visually unpleasant.
Luckily for her, she's not a model, otherwise that would actually be relevant :V
Models have weird facial expressions as well.
The duck face. Whoever invented that ought to be fired. I can't name one person/celebrity/model that looks better with the duck face. Then again, I'm a "smile" guy; I'm sure someone somewhere must've said "hey that looks good on you!".
I do believe Donald and Daffy would disagree with you good sir.
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here. We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves. If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not. (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd. Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)
Are you talking about two different things perhaps? You mentioned people "mocking" Trump's expressions, which is one thing (a bit childish, but teasing and impersonating the mannerisms of politicians is pretty standard). But if you mean people talking about his appearance and expressions as a serious criticism of him, then yes that is also odd. It's odd whoever it's about.
Well, I think I'm talking about one thing, but there are several different points circulating around. I think we agree that as serious criticism, it's off the mark. Me, I've made quite the effort over the past 15 years or so to try to curb the tendency to go for low-hanging fruit. I'm also not a big one for "deserve". What actually do any of us "deserve" (at least that other people are entitled to determine)? Whether I think Trump "funny looking" or not is not germaine to anything of substance. We talk all the time about "tolerance" and "kindness" and none of those are predicated on receiving them first. None are, or should be, predicated on personal judgment (else most of the racists we talk about would have to have the chance to justify their "stories"). I don't test out someone who is homosexual (or any other identity politics characteristic) to see if they are "tolerant" of me before I extend tolerance to them. It's a part of simple humanity, and whether Trump's a douche or not (he is, IMO) I'd prefer not to be on his level. The point with all these things that supposedly make us better people is that we should be doing it when it's HARD, not just when it's easy.
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.
We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to me too. Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.
We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.
Nuclear is an obvious part of the solution, imo, but the main problem is that it is not renewable. It just kicks the can down a generation or so, right?
-
And for every "conservative" critique, there's a "liberal" one. If given the choice, I'll take hemming and hawing over hyperbole and moral bullying that leads only to thinly veiled 'change' that doesn't do what it's intended to do, and instead leads us to things like Trump (you're not in P/R, but see Dave Manchester's post from yesterday or the day before about the "problem" with American liberals). Regardless of who is at "fault" (hint, it's both), all of it is just partisan bickering, and all of it just sets the stage for that Beijing kowtow that you talked about above (which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with, even if I don't get there by the same path).
Just responding to this part, because it's the only part of your post I'd like to qualify. There's a limit to how much you can blame "both sides" for this issue, because it's the conservatives that harbor the bulk of those who quite plainly do want to deny and do nothing. Of course, the liberals do this on a litany of issues too, but this isn't one of them. Coming up with half-baked solutions? Sure. Outright denial? Nah.
A fantastic (if perhaps slightly dated now) article that counters your point nicely (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/conservatives-and-climate-change): The Republican position — either avowed ignorance or conspiracy theorizing — is ultimately unsustainable, but some still cling to it because they believe that accepting the premise that some climate change is occurring as a result of human action means accepting the conclusions of the most rabid left-wing climate activists. They fear, at least implicitly, that the politics of climate change is just a twisted road with a known destination: supporting new carbon taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or other statist means of energy rationing, and in the process ceding yet another key economic sector to government control. Conservatives seem to be on the horns of a dilemma: They will have to either continue to ignore real scientific findings or accept higher taxes, energy rationing, and increased regulation.
For someone like me - not a Republican, not a politician, actually a scientist (of sorts; I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering) and VEHEMENTLY against the "tax and punish" solutions largely put forth by those with solutions - that's a shitty position, but it makes sense.
But even if you don't buy into that - and I can understand if you don't - the numbers DO NOT support your position. Sure, Jim Inhoff and Donald Trump get the headlines with their snowballs and crappy weather forecasts, but the reality on the ground is NOT what you say it is.
39% of REPUBLICANS say we're not doing enough to combat climate change (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/). Think about that; forget about "denying"; almost 40% not only accept it, but think we're NOT DOING ENOUGH. When you add in Independents that lean right, we're over 65%. A majority of Republicans under the age of 38 think we're not doing enough. Again, this is past denying, this is accepting and addressing and not doing enough. 75% of CONSERVATIVE Republicans think we're not doing enough or doing just the right amount. Again, NOT denying, but past that, addressing action.
90% of Democrats think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. The party of "Big Oil"? The Republicans? Over 60% think we should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production.
Skeever, again, not telling you what to think, but I think it's pretty clear that the data doesn't fully reflect your perceptions. I know they are your experience, and I don't discount that, but I'm kindly telling you that experience doesn't account for changing times, changing demographics and changing priorities.
I don't think we're really as far apart on this as I may have led you to believe based on my remarks about conservatives. For example, even though it's by no means a permanent solution or a one size fits all answer, I absolutely think we need to explore nuclear. For reasons that I cannot understand, that idea has almost no currency on the left.
We are 1000% in line on nuclear; it is one of the most baffling things about this whole issue to me too. Smaller, skid-mounted reactors can be deployed in a number of situations (military is the obvious one, but there are countless civilian applications as well) that would not only stabilize our national grid(s) but actually provide meaningful levels of "clean" (from a climate change perspective) energy to the nation.
We have a nuclear power plant near me that's closing for a variety of reasons and one of the directors of the plant had a good point in an article about it that he doesn't understand people cheering for closing the plant and then turn around and say they want clean energy (obviously read: green energy) since the only biproduct outside of the small amount of nuclear waste is steam. Unfortunately you have folks looking at a very small number of freak accidents in the past and damn all nuclear power plants to hell. Funny enough in the same paper there was another article about how a huge swath of forest was to be cleared in a proposal for a new solar farm. I guess that's OK with some folks, though.
Nuclear is an obvious part of the solution, imo, but the main problem is that it is not renewable. It just kicks the can down a generation or so, right?
I could see us disposing of that kind of waste in space at some point in the future. That and other trash. Once we figure out a way to use water to produce hydrogen-based rocket fuel all bets are off on what we can do to leverage space for the benefit of earth. Sending pollution (including spent nuclear power-plant fuel) on barges out on a one-way trip into the sun. Problem solved. You're welcome. :coolio
-
It’s an odd thing because Greta doesn’t comment on the appearance of others. Trump on the other hand......
We're not talking about Greta or Trump, we're talking about people here. We can't control other people, but we can control ourselves. If commenting on others' looks is bad, we ought not do it, whether someone else did or not. (I'm not trying to be smart to you, I'm just explaining why I don't see it as odd. Or, rather, what I see as odd is selectively calling it out.)
Are you talking about two different things perhaps? You mentioned people "mocking" Trump's expressions, which is one thing (a bit childish, but teasing and impersonating the mannerisms of politicians is pretty standard). But if you mean people talking about his appearance and expressions as a serious criticism of him, then yes that is also odd. It's odd whoever it's about.
Well, I think I'm talking about one thing, but there are several different points circulating around. I think we agree that as serious criticism, it's off the mark. Me, I've made quite the effort over the past 15 years or so to try to curb the tendency to go for low-hanging fruit. I'm also not a big one for "deserve". What actually do any of us "deserve" (at least that other people are entitled to determine)? Whether I think Trump "funny looking" or not is not germaine to anything of substance. We talk all the time about "tolerance" and "kindness" and none of those are predicated on receiving them first. None are, or should be, predicated on personal judgment (else most of the racists we talk about would have to have the chance to justify their "stories"). I don't test out someone who is homosexual (or any other identity politics characteristic) to see if they are "tolerant" of me before I extend tolerance to them. It's a part of simple humanity, and whether Trump's a douche or not (he is, IMO) I'd prefer not to be on his level. The point with all these things that supposedly make us better people is that we should be doing it when it's HARD, not just when it's easy.
Agree with all that. And to be clear, I think we agree on people being mocked for their appearance/mannerisms too. I don't think it's as problematic as serious criticism about it, which is why I felt it appropriate to note that they are different (as I understand why others would be comfortable with it), but I'm not a fan myself and at times it can actually undercut the real criticisms that should actually be discussed.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
So the entire exchange you cited is here: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=56416.msg2771321#msg2771321
I think you're wasting your breath. Partly because of the [somewhat ironic] arrogance already in play in that post, and mostly because I think we've pretty much boiled it down to the LCD. Climate change is only an issue for us. The Earth will get over it. If you don't care if humanity eeks out a miserable existence for the next few hundred years, then it's not really a problem. Personally, I'd be just fine with the dinosaurs getting a second go at it. If humanity's reaction is to ridicule a young girl rather than face up to what's happening, then we're pretty much the least deserving species to run the show. Probably for the best that we eradicate ourselves and make room for some other species to take a crack at it.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
I'm repeating myself from something I wrote above, but for me the problem isn't in your three paragraphs. The problem is when your three paragraphs get paraphrased (by others) as certainty, that certainty is narrowly assumed to lead to the worst possible effect, and that effect is narrowly answered with politically-motivated, partisan "solutions".
I get science, the benefits and limitations (I'm a civil engineer) and have no problem with that. In a past job I was privy to information that for me leaves no doubt that there are substantive changes to Earth's climate from human activity. From there, though, things change. I do not agree that losing even a significant fraction of U.S. coastline (and the properties that exist on that coastline) equates to "human annihilation". I do not agree with the country-specific, partisan solutions that most often get put forth as "our moral imperative". Carbon taxing is not a "moral imperative". Substantially impairing the U.S. economy while other, large economies bear no burden is not a "moral imperative".
You've given us a smart, reasonable post; I would love if the impact analysis and proposed solutions by others had that same intelligence and reason.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence. Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat. Hence the reference to arrogance. Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur. There are many other factors that don't involve us. As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet. Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent. People don't respond very well to that. If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner. She's way to young to be that pissed off.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence. Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat. Hence the reference to arrogance. Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur. There are many other factors that don't involve us. As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet. Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent. People don't respond very well to that. If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner. She's way to young to be that pissed off.
You keep referring to arrogance, and yet your problem with Great is that she doesn't conform to your ideal of an activist.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence. Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat. Hence the reference to arrogance. Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur. There are many other factors that don't involve us. As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet. Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent. People don't respond very well to that. If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner. She's way to young to be that pissed off.
She is however intelligent enough to listen to the people who are, and have spent their life's work studying it. Unlike some people.
In any case, the younger you are, the worse the effects of climate change you are likely to live through. She's entirely the right age to be pissed off.
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence. Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat. Hence the reference to arrogance. Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur. There are many other factors that don't involve us. As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet. Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent. People don't respond very well to that. If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner. She's way to young to be that pissed off.
She is however intelligent enough to listen to the people who are, and have spent their life's work studying it. Unlike some people.
In any case, the younger you are, the worse the effects of climate change you are likely to live through. She's entirely the right age to be pissed off.
"Listen" or "agree with"? Because for me the two are often confused. Too often people are lauded for simply agreeing, and that minimizes the necessity for reasonable disagreement. "Agreeing" doesn't mean "right" or "correct". I'm not lauding her for "agreeing".
I LISTEN to climate scientists and honor their life's work in studying it. And I even agree that our temperatures are rising and there will be impacts to the planet and mankind. I've LISTENED. I don't (necessarily) agree that the U.S. should bear the burden alone (vis-a-vis China), nor, in the U.S., should corporations bear the burden alone (vis-a-vis the government generally).
-
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence. Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat. Hence the reference to arrogance. Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur. There are many other factors that don't involve us. As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet. Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent. People don't respond very well to that. If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner. She's way to young to be that pissed off.
You keep referring to arrogance, and yet your problem with Great is that she doesn't conform to your ideal of an activist.
I never said anything about ideal activists or conformity. Couldn't fucking care less about activism. It was merely a suggestion and opinion if she wants to be successful at it. I was expressing my honest thoughts as the thread title suggests. If all she wants to do is make people think she's be a whiny little bitch, that won't work. Especially at that age. Any other false assumptions you'd like to make?
All of a sudden humans show up and we're arrogant enough to think that we caused it and somehow have to fix it?
A small proportion of humans are smart enough to have developed an understanding of fundamental physics, the chemistry that springs from it and how human activity is impacting the atmosphere. We already know we can have a large scale impact on the atmosphere from the impact of CFCs on the Ozone layer.
We now have ample evidence that heavily implicates human activity as the main cause of the rapid change in climate over the last 200 years that's moving far quicker than any cycles the planet has gone through over the prior million years. The body of scientific evidence that means we've been able to determine changes in climate the planet has experienced, both over extended periods of time and due to catastrophic events, is drawn from the same pool as that which tells us we have a large cause for concern about what humanity is doing to our atmosphere.
Science, done properly, always leaves room for doubt in the event of new evidence that challenges current knowledge but as things stand the science is telling us it's humanity driving the pace of climate change we're experiencing. The only real open question is what affect this will have on life, particularly humanity, on earth.
You pretty much proved my point in that last sentence. Humans are only concerned about how it affects humanity and their own habitat. Hence the reference to arrogance. Of course humans can strive to reduce carbon emissions and that's all well and good, but is no guarantee that climate change won't still occur. There are many other factors that don't involve us. As far as I'm concerned, I think Greta is too young and not educated enough to fully understand the big picture of the planet. Yes, she's creating awareness but the doom and gloom fashion in which she presents herself only comes across as negative hyperbole and malcontent. People don't respond very well to that. If she wants to be an activist and a leader, she needs to come across in a more positive and hopeful manner. She's way to young to be that pissed off.
She is however intelligent enough to listen to the people who are, and have spent their life's work studying it. Unlike some people.
In any case, the younger you are, the worse the effects of climate change you are likely to live through. She's entirely the right age to be pissed off.
Hey Doc, if all you want to do it take things out of context and discredit one's opinion, I'd prefer that you just move on. Whaddaya think?