• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Opinion WP: Environmentalists make good movie villains because they want to make your real life worse

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,195
2,276
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
Challenged by uncritical feelings and decades of environmental data and dogma leading to a rigorously vetted consensus being dismissed because of boilerplate observations?
Decades of environmental data that was used by alarmists to predict catastrophic outcomes. This isn't guesswork we're talking about here, it's real world outcomes over the last 5, 10, even 30+ years that we can compare to the predictions we were fed. Do you believe we're living in catastrophic times?

I was a hardcore hockey player when I was younger, a lot of that hockey played on outdoor ice rinks and I've noticed the so-called season shortened slightly over time - the ice used to be maintained from the end of December to the beginning of March (has to be -5C/23F or colder) and it now tends to end by the end of February. An argument can be made about the municipal governments cutting back funding or changing certain criteria, but it's clear to me the weather over the last 10-15 years has generally produced less than desirable results for the outdoor ice hockey crowd.

Likewise, a fair amount of homes built right by the water's edge are now in what the province designates as flood zones, cutting down on work permits for construction and insurance claims. I've seen the various effects of climate change first-hand.

That said, I refuse to buy into the alarmist claims coming from public figures like Greta Thunberg and politicians that are using changes occurring in our environment to propose large scale policies that risk doing far more harm to us than the slowly changing climate and everything that brings with it. It's in their best interest to tackle the issue reasonably because when they start using hyperbolic language like some of their peers in years/decades past it becomes very easy to dismiss them. The world isn't ending in 11 years like AOC initially claimed, nor is that a period of no return as others have said, including experts.

Our species has come a very long way since the last ice age and has been examining the idea of creating colonies on the moon and even Mars. I think that even given some of the worst case scenarios today's scientists are throwing around our kids and their kids and their kids after them will be more than fine in a 100 years. Again, that's not to say we shouldn't do anything between now and then - we're already on a path that has us doing a great deal - but it's in everyone's best interest to enter the discussion with reason rather than emotional pleas based on extreme views, like Greta Thunberg and AOC.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
You serious? China doesn't have to do shit. Violation of human rights? Please. Last I checked they are rounding up all Muslims in camps, burning Christian/Catholic books, and flattening people with tanks. Tiananmen Square anyone?
Yeah China can choose not to comply and ad another human rights violation to their record. The thing is that the lawsuit is looking to put extra pressure on these countries but it is not guarantee that it would work. Still at least they're trying smth and China has slowly been improving their human rights records because they know that to become a world leader they also need moral leadership. So a lawsuit such as this can set a legal precedent to pressure rising powers like China into complying with more environmental regulations.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,615
830
Brampton, Ontario
If the lawsuit is succesful, China would also have to comply to reduce emissions or they will be in violation of human rights.
Oh nooo. Human rights violations. We all know how China takes that seriously. :messenger_sad_relieved: :messenger_sad_relieved: :ROFLMAO:

Also, one more time. China is apart of the UN Security Council. They can veto anything that condemns them.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
40,156
15,956
1,395
The Pentagon
china will do what china wants and tbh, they're actually doing a lot of clever shit with carbon sequestration that we could learn from
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
Why can't the rest of the continent follow his example?
Maybe you should ask them and why this guy's efforts didnt work that well...

And look He was a marxist. Maybe the US or another western nation sabotaged his plans or funded guerrillas to destabilize his government. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...




For the benefit of both Africans and the environment, we should not be sustaining an infinite population growth that will lead to one of two outcomes:
1. Climate change is real and the world knowingly gave aid to watch billions of people fry anyway.
2. The endless cycle of war and failed governments causes these people to flee to Western countries, inflating their footprint and accelerating climate change.
Funnily enough many of the people who would rather see half the population of Africa starve to death than continue giving them aid are also whining in moral outrage if abortion is proposed as part of birth control solutions. It seems fetuses are more valuable than fully functional africans.

Again, realistic solutions are severely lacking...
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,615
830
Brampton, Ontario
Maybe you should ask them and why this guy's efforts didnt work that well...

And look He was a marxist. Maybe the US or another western nation sabotaged his plans or funded guerrillas to destabilize his government. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
A self sufficient African country is still a better upgrade then one based on the handouts. As I've said on these boards, ideology plays second to actually having a leader with a future.


It's a much smarter strategy than letting Africans starve to death though 🤷🏽‍♂️
Money isn't infinite. If you think the situation is bad now, what do you think is going to happen in the future when the world adds billions of more people?

Something is going to give. Whether it's the planet, western societies or 3rd world ones.

I'm saying, self sufficiency is the only way to help everyone. Every country should look after themselves. Isn't this a goal worth fighting for? No one starves, no one pollutes.

A lawsuit is completely toothless because you can't just bring nations as powerful like China to the negotiating table and demand they follow your arbitrary definitions of pollution. Unless you're on Team Trump and do want to apply pressure to China but ironically, if he loses office, the next President will reverse this and we're back to step zero.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
A self sufficient African country is still a better upgrade then one based on the handouts. As I've said on these boards, ideology plays second to actually having a leader with a future.



Money isn't infinite. If you think the situation is bad now, what do you think is going to happen in the future when the world adds billions of more people?

Something is going to give. Whether it's the planet, western societies or 3rd world ones.
I agree but im asking for real solutions, you're criticizing a kid for starting a lawsuit which is actually trying to do smth but provide no real alternative solutions... I guess letting everything go to hell is a proposal but then, why criticize the child? After all everything is going to hell anyways and the child is at least trying to do something that can't be as bad as just letting everything go to hell. I admire her determination and hope anyways. Im pessimistic myself and i think everything will go to hell but i sure as hell wont make it more difficult to others who are at least trying to do smth. That would be a massive assholish move from my part. Worst case scenario, whatever she does doesn't work and everything goes to hell, best case scenario whatever she does works and it actually improves smth.

It just pisses me off that people jump on the kid for trying smth and then they have 0 realistic alternative proposals. It's all a whole bunch of hot ideological air with 0 substance.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
yeah lets vilify this 15 year old girl, whose English as a second language is better than your own I might add, because she fights for cutting carbon emissions. Her, alongside the entire scientific community. keep up the good work fellas 👍

Indeed, insert the Are we the baddies meme

I found this line in her speech rather poignant: "This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?"

I've watched the right slowly move the goal posts on the issue of climate change for years and it's been insufferable.
You’re falling for their slimy tactics, Lil Gobbie. Make a child the face of your movement and any criticism can be met with an accusation of bullying a poor, helpless innocent. She’s simply the conduit for other people’s ideas.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
Also an African leader chooses to reject aid and chooses self-determination, he is a marxist, the west doesn't like it, makes everything possible to make this country's Life and subsistance a misery. Once the west destroys their sovereignity and self-determination, they have a new pawn to manipulate through aid and handouts. The west has been actively preventing the self-determination of many countries for decades creating lap dogs that depend on western aid to subsist. Their interest has been to keep these countries poor, submitted and beggars. So i laugh when westerners cry about migration, they are reaping what their governments helped sow in the name of progress, capitalism, to defeat the communist boogeymen or whatever other excuses they could muster. The west has helped create its own problems and now it acts surprised and outraged.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,615
830
Brampton, Ontario
Also an African leader chooses to reject aid and chooses self-determination, he is a marxist, the west doesn't like it, makes everything possible to make this country's Life and subsistance a misery. Once the west destroys their sovereignity and self-determination, they have a new pawn to manipulate through aid and handouts. The west has been actively preventing the self-determination of many countries for decades creating lap dogs that depend on western aid to subsist. Their interest has been to keep these countries poor, submitted and beggars.
Why doesn't Japan rely on Western aid despite having been destroyed by them?

So i laugh when westerners cry about migration, they are reaping what their governments helped sow in the name of progress, capitalism, to defeat the communist boogeymen or whatever other excuses they could muster.
Borders are much older than the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: RSB

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,549
5,764
420
Also an African leader chooses to reject aid and chooses self-determination, he is a marxist, the west doesn't like it, makes everything possible to make this country's Life and subsistance a misery. Once the west destroys their sovereignity and self-determination, they have a new pawn to manipulate through aid and handouts. The west has been actively preventing the self-determination of many countries for decades creating lap dogs that depend on western aid to subsist. Their interest has been to keep these countries poor, submitted and beggars. So i laugh when westerners cry about migration, they are reaping what their governments helped sow in the name of progress, capitalism, to defeat the communist boogeymen or whatever other excuses they could muster. The west has helped create its own problems and now it acts surprised and outraged.
I'm guessing you don't know jack shit about most African countries
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
Why doesn't Japan rely on Western aid despite having been destroyed by them?


Borders are much older than the Cold War.
You were the one who pointed me towards an African leader that chose self-determination over western dependence and ended up being assasinated because he opposed colonial Powers and then ask me why other African countries don't do the same. Well duh, cause this colonial powers kill or go against any leader that looks for self-determination. Has happened is Africa and latin america constantly. So yeah if western powers are going to whine about migration they better first accept their responsibility in perpetuating humanitarian crisis across the world that created the conditions for people to want to migrate in the first place, otherwise their whining about migrants is laughable.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,615
830
Brampton, Ontario
You were the one who pointed me towards an African leader that chose self-determination over western dependence and ended up being assasinated because he opposed colonial Powers and then ask me why other African countries don't do the same.
Wrap it up people. One assassination means no country can ever have self determination.
When John F Kennedy died, we all know America collapsed right?

. So yeah if western powers are going to whine about migration
How many leaders has Sweden assassinated? Or Denmark?
The "West" is actually a big place. And yet migration towards all countries is the same, regardless if they actually had a role in foreign meddling or not.

So yes, we can whine about migration.

the world that created the conditions for people to want to migrate in the first place, otherwise their whining about migrants is laughable.
Russia played a bigger role than several other European nations in the Cold War yet hardly anyone is migrating there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
1,503
1,775
445
You’re falling for their slimy tactics, Lil Gobbie. Make a child the face of your movement and any criticism can be met with an accusation of bullying a poor, helpless innocent. She’s simply the conduit for other people’s ideas.
It seems to me her analytical heart is in the right place. Just because the left is exploiting the shit out of her for political reasons does not mean she is anyone's puppet. She made it clear in her speech that it's incredibly frustrating and unfair that adults/politicians have to lean on for hope and direction. I've followed her for some time, and these are genuinely her beliefs, right or wrong, and cheaply handwaving her views as propaganda just because she's entered the American political sphere is dismissive and ignorant. It's not impossible that I've been fooled by this well spoken young swede, but in this climate of liberals touting climate change all the while cruising on their yachts, flying their jets, etc, we should all be able to appreciate someone actually walking the talk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yoshi

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,549
5,764
420
It seems to me her analytical heart is in the right place. Just because the left is exploiting the shit out of her for political reasons does not mean she is anyone's puppet. She made it clear in her speech that it's incredibly frustrating and unfair that adults/politicians have to lean on for hope and direction. I've followed her for some time, and these are genuinely her beliefs, right or wrong, and cheaply handwaving her views as propaganda just because she's entered the American political sphere is dismissive and ignorant. It's not impossible that I've been fooled by this well spoken young swede, but in this climate of liberals touting climate change all the while cruising on their yachts, flying their jets, etc, we should all be able to appreciate someone actually walking the talk.
How is she getting back home again?
 

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
1,503
1,775
445
Does it really make sense for any adult to be following a child with zero real-world life experience or wisdom?
Sorry I did not mean twitter or social media but in articles dating from 2018 so I guess it hasn't been that long, but she was making waves in Sweden at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EviLore

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
Wrap it up people. One assassination means no country can ever have self determination.
When John F Kennedy died, we all know America collapsed right?
Lol one assasination,as if the same shit hasnt happened time and time again in several regions. It is disingeneous to ask why the countries in the region are not developing themselves when colonial powers keep interfeering with their self determination. Well leave them the fuck alone for once then, maybe try that for a change?. But you and your fellows keep voting for politicians that the least thing they want is to leave them the fuck alone until this very day and then you come crying to internet forums about evil migration and why this is happening to your countries... It's laughable i tell you.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,615
830
Brampton, Ontario
Lol one assasination,as if the same shit hasnt happened time and time again in several regions. It is disingeneous to ask why the countries in the region are not developing themselves when colonial powers keep interfeering with their self determination.
You proved my point. Assassinations by themselves doesn't lead to nations collapsing. They happen everywhere.

crowbrow said:
Well leave them the fuck alone for once then, maybe try that for a change?. But you and your fellows keep voting for politicians that the least thing they want is to leave them the fuck alone until this very day and then you come crying to internet forums about evil migration and why this is happening to your countries... It's laughable i tell you.
I am GAF's #1 supporter of isolationism. I do want less Western involvement in these places.

However, that also doesn't mean I can't support our nations having borders. In fact, point me to a rule that says living in the West is a human right?

There's Russia which again, was just as bad in foreign meddling, but no one is moving there for some reason...
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
It seems to me her analytical heart is in the right place. Just because the left is exploiting the shit out of her for political reasons does not mean she is anyone's puppet. She made it clear in her speech that it's incredibly frustrating and unfair that adults/politicians have to lean on for hope and direction. I've followed her for some time, and these are genuinely her beliefs, right or wrong, and cheaply handwaving her views as propaganda just because she's entered the American political sphere is dismissive and ignorant. It's not impossible that I've been fooled by this well spoken young swede, but in this climate of liberals touting climate change all the while cruising on their yachts, flying their jets, etc, we should all be able to appreciate someone actually walking the talk.
She's 16. She has autism. Her parents are career activists. I do not understand how you can look at her emotional ranting and call her analytical. She is quite clearly a child doing what children do: seeking the approval of her parents through emulation. Analytical suggests that she has considered all the facts and come to a conclusion based on reason. Children simply have not been in the world long enough to have even a fraction of the understanding necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on such a complex topic. There's a reason you don't promote a 21 year old university graduate to a CEO position. Same logic applies here and the obsession and exploitation of children by the left is a truly disgusting political tactic.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
You proved my point. Assassinations by themselves doesn't lead to nations collapsing. They happen everywhere.
It definitely helps destabilizing the nation. Why would any African leader push for self-determination if they would end up killed with support of a foreign western power? Better to just become the lapdog of that power and rely on their aid. So If western governments are not going to put up their part in Stop trying to interveene in other nations internal processes then they should stop crying about migration. If you're going to shoot yourselves in the foot continuosly don't expect the sympathy, help or understanding by other, first get your shit together.

Tell me, how strong is really your desire for isolationism or is that just talk? Because i've seen lots of Americans say how pro-isolationism they are and, in the moment of the truth, they end up voting for the same warmonger neocons of always. For me, the American candidate that actually has a strongest isolationist plan of actually reducing Americans dependency on foreign energy sources and cutting back on military presence is Bernie Sanders and, yet, i suspect you nor other isolationists would ever vote for him. So this isolationist talk is that, just talk. America and other western powers will keep meddling into other countries affairs making things worse, then humanitarian crisis will come, migration will increase, the same people who voted those who helped made things worse will whine about migration and the cycle will rinse and repeat like it has been going on for the last half century.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,622
5,615
830
Brampton, Ontario
It definitely helps destabilizing the nation.
If you need one person to manage all your food, public education, healthcare etc, then the problem with these countries isn't assassination causing them to fail.

Think about it for a second. During WW2, many people wanted to kill Hitler. Would it not have made more sense to just drop one bomb on his bunker if that's all it would take to end the war?
Except that was never the case. In fact, WW2 did not end until literally all of Germany was reduced to rubble.

Africans need self determination at all levels of society. They need to demonstrate that people can take care of themselves, even without the government personally walking through every part of their lives.

crowbrow said:
Tell me, how strong is really your desire for isolationism or is that just talk? Because i've seen lots of Americans say how pro-isolationism they are and, in the moment of the truth, they end up voting for the same warmonger neocons of always. For me, the American candidate that actually has a strongest isolationist plan of actually reducing Americans dependency on foreign energy sources and cutting back on military presence is Bernie Sanders and, yet, i suspect you nor other isolationists would ever vote for him. So this isolationist talk is that, just talk. America and other western powers will keep meddling into other countries affairs making things worse, then humanitarian crisis will come, migration will increase, the same people who voted those who helped made things worse will whine about migration and the cycle will rinse and repeat like it has been going on for the last half century.
How Isolationist am I?

If I became Prime Minister or President tomorrow, I would close the borders completely and freeze foreign donations. I believe the only future worth fighting for, is one where nations are no longer entangled with each other. It doesn't mean we can't do trade or interact, but I would like to embrace the same model Japan has, where national interests come first, and they only do foreign business when it benefits them.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
501
114
1,025
She's 16. She has autism. Her parents are career activists. I do not understand how you can look at her emotional ranting and call her analytical. She is quite clearly a child doing what children do: seeking the approval of her parents through emulation. Analytical suggests that she has considered all the facts and come to a conclusion based on reason. Children simply have not been in the world long enough to have even a fraction of the understanding necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on such a complex topic. There's a reason you don't promote a 21 year old university graduate to a CEO position. Same logic applies here and the obsession and exploitation of children by the left is a truly disgusting political tactic.
But isn't her message precisely *not* to look to her for solutions, but to look to climate scientists?
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
But isn't her message precisely *not* to look to her for solutions, but to look to climate scientists?
That’s not the message I got from her tearful screeching. Scientists aren’t policy experts anyway. I sincerely doubt that the majority of climate scientists are thinking about the ramifications of funneling billions of dollars out of the US while leaving China virtually untouched via the Paris accord. Their job is diagnosis, not treatment. It’s not a simple problem and climate scientists are only one part of it.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
501
114
1,025
Well, she says:

“This is not about us. This is not about youth activism,” she said. “We don’t want to be heard. We want the science to be heard.”


"It feels like we are at a breaking point. Leaders know that more eyes on them, much more pressure is on them, that they have to do something, they have to come up with some sort of solution. I want a concrete plan, not just nice words.”


"No matter how political the background to this crisis may be, we must not allow this to continue to be a partisan political question. The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy now is physics. And we can not make ‘deals’ with physics."


So basically, she seems to be saying that as a child, it is not her role to come up with solutions, or advocate particular public policies (because she is not an expert) but merely to highlight the fact that politicians don't seem to taking the potential threat seriously.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
Well, she says:

“This is not about us. This is not about youth activism,” she said. “We don’t want to be heard. We want the science to be heard.”


"It feels like we are at a breaking point. Leaders know that more eyes on them, much more pressure is on them, that they have to do something, they have to come up with some sort of solution. I want a concrete plan, not just nice words.”


"No matter how political the background to this crisis may be, we must not allow this to continue to be a partisan political question. The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy now is physics. And we can not make ‘deals’ with physics."


So basically, she seems to be saying that as a child, it is not her role to come up with solutions, or advocate particular public policies (because she is not an expert) but merely to highlight the fact that politicians don't seem to taking the potential threat seriously.
You are missing my point.

Who is she, as a child, to be the one doing the highlighting? What purpose does she serve other than to stoke fear and elicit emotion on what you argue should be a purely scientific (and therefore unemotional) topic? She has that same lemonsucking pout that appeals to activists the world over. She is just as manufactured as Malala. She is performing. Watch her win a humanitarian award for her performance which is tantamount to nothing more than Veruca Salt foot stamping.



She is not capable of critically assessing the issue because she does not have the requisite life experience to understand all of the intricacies and political maneuvering involved. She. Is. A. Child. She doesn't know what she's talking about -- she only knows what she's been told. Moreover, she has autism, which makes her far more easily manipulated and susceptible to indoctrination. She is a mouthpiece for the adults in her life who know they wouldn't receive the same sympathy because they are not children and therefore would not be as effective in pushing their political goals. You highlight particular phrases that sound nice, but all propaganda sounds nice. You need to peel back the curtain and consider the consequences of what is being proposed. They're not the only words she said anyway and you have cherrypicked the words that support your narrative. What exactly do you think she means when she says:

“You come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing.

“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is the money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

As I said, science is one aspect, but policy is another. If the left were serious about tackling climate change, they wouldn't have structured the Paris agreement to act as a wealth redistribution scheme that funnels wealth out of the US while doing nothing about China or its self-declared developing status. If you want to point fingers, point it at the people who drafted the Paris agreement. Moreover, why should anyone believe that the side that can't even get basic biological science right also has all of the climate science and associated policy right? I grew up in the 90s and 00s. I remember the Al Gore propaganda machine. I believe climate change is a real issue but I believe it's nowhere near as disastrous as is being presented. Why has no one pushing the current doomsday theories ever revisited the wildly inaccurate An Inconvenient Truth? Gore had us underwater years ago. Why does that elephant continue to linger, completely unaddressed? You know how the saying goes: fool me once...
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,439
2,616
1,500
If you don't think you were a dumbass at 15, you have a serious case of arrested development.
Crass, but on point.

On fucking point.

How are people, some very smart and actually self aware, unable to see what is happening here?

Emotions are so easily manipulated for some. Like the strings of a marionette she tugs at your heart. Her pleading, and angry rant "to save the world".

Political theater has never been so very obvious.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
501
114
1,025
You are missing my point.
Who is she, as a child, to be the one doing the highlighting? What purpose does she serve other than to stoke fear and elicit emotion on what you argue should be a purely scientific (and therefore unemotional) topic?
I would argue that this is exactly her purpose. Human beings are driven by emotion as much as they are by cold logic. If she had just gone up on stage and recited a bunch of statistics do you think she would have had anywhere near the same impact?

And you are right that as a child she has more impact not only with other adults but with children as well, who can identify with her example.

I think you can distinguish between the process of science itself (which should be dispassionate), and our attitudes towards the conclusions of science, which are driven by emotion and identity. As I understand it, Al Gore made the climate change debate into a partisan issue, so Republicans were inclined to take the opposing side. But here in the UK it is not such a partisan issue, and the disputes between Labour and The Conservatives are more about implementation.

So in my opinion if there is a story or narrative that allows us to make changes more effectively, we should adopt it. (And perhaps Greta's contribution was more polarising than helpful, but we will see).

She is not capable of critically assessing the issue because she does not have the requisite life experience to understand all of the intricacies and political maneuvering involved. She. Is. A. Child. She doesn't know what she's talking about -- she only knows what she's been told.
I guess I have more faith that a 16 year old is capable of appraising the basic conclusions of scientific research. But I agree that she doesn't necessarily have an understanding of the political repercussions of her actions.

They're not the only words she said anyway and you have cherrypicked the words that support your narrative. What exactly do you think she means when she says:

“You come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing.

“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is the money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”
Well in none of these words does she support any concrete policy proposals, either. I think she is expressing outrage at politicians for failing to prevent the destruction of ecosystems and blaming them for taking away her (and other) children's dreams of a safe future. She is making an emotional appeal to a collective sense of loss.

I believe climate change is a real issue but I believe it's nowhere near as disastrous as is being presented. Why has no one pushing the current doomsday theories ever revisited the wildly inaccurate An Inconvenient Truth? Gore had us underwater years ago. Why does that elephant continue to linger, completely unaddressed? You know how the saying goes: fool me once...
Well, the boy who cried wolf does eventually get eaten. The way I look at it it is suppose there is only a 10% chance of a catastrophic event occurring. Isn't that still something that should worry you? Like if I told you there was a 10% chance you would die tomorrow unless you did X, wouldn't you be pretty strongly inclined to do X?
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,195
2,276
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
Well, the boy who cried wolf does eventually get eaten. The way I look at it it is suppose there is only a 10% chance of a catastrophic event occurring. Isn't that still something that should worry you? Like if I told you there was a 10% chance you would die tomorrow unless you did X, wouldn't you be pretty strongly inclined to do X?
In my case, that depends on what my life/the world would look like after I did X. If someone tells me I have a 10% chance at dying tomorrow unless I chop off Joe Jr. I think I'll take my chances.

Using the Green New Deal as an example of X for Americans you can begin to see how tumultuous the next few years might look. Forget the US acting as the world's police, for starters, because a good chunk of that military funding will likely be redistributed elsewhere and bring with it a host of pros/cons that have a wide-ranging set of cascading effects influencing both the US and other countries. Good luck keeping universal health care in play when certain countries will have to significantly raise military spending to offset the loss of the American juggernaut.

It's all one big, complicated balancing act on the world stage which is why addressing an issue like climate change in the short term isn't easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Paasei

Member
May 15, 2014
955
241
445
Oh nooo. Human rights violations. We all know how China takes that seriously. :messenger_sad_relieved: :messenger_sad_relieved: :ROFLMAO:

Also, one more time. China is apart of the UN Security Council. They can veto anything that condemns them.
Already reason enough to not take the UN seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Vicetrailia

Member
Mar 12, 2019
623
278
335
So from conservative politicians, to fox news to breitbart to reddit and to people here, it's so weird to see that this teenager is causing these reactions and getting people to respond with the same arguments in lockstep. I do believe she has agency here, and shouldn't be excluded from the conversation, while at the same time hating the new green deal.

I just read this quote from the chick, and I see that it's a valid question: [Why are] “these hate and conspiracy campaigns are allowed to go on and on and on just because we children communicate and act on the science”, “Where are the adults?”.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,842
2,296
550
If you need one person to manage all your food, public education, healthcare etc, then the problem with these countries isn't assassination causing them to fail.
It doesn't matter. This is the equivalent if Russia were destroying export ships from the US and then whining because the US doesn't export more. Don't whine about a problem you're helping create, it just makes you look like a hypocrite.
If I became Prime Minister or President tomorrow, I would close the borders completely and freeze foreign donations.
OK so again you're here with your fantasies that will never happen. Im asking in the real world what are your actions? Are you going to vote for Sanders since he's the one who has proposed a bigger deal on cutting dependence of the US in foreign energy sources and reducing military presence. Voting for Sanders is a realistic scenario, you becoming President and cutting foreign aid the next day isnt. So are you willing to put your hands where your mouth is to achieve what you're claiming you want or are you full of shit? Because if being isolationist is living in those fantastical scenarios of yours, you might as well not be since you're never going to become president and cut all foreign aid from one day to the other.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,510
3,131
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
She's 16. She has autism. Her parents are career activists. I do not understand how you can look at her emotional ranting and call her analytical. She is quite clearly a child doing what children do: seeking the approval of her parents through emulation. Analytical suggests that she has considered all the facts and come to a conclusion based on reason. Children simply have not been in the world long enough to have even a fraction of the understanding necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on such a complex topic. There's a reason you don't promote a 21 year old university graduate to a CEO position. Same logic applies here and the obsession and exploitation of children by the left is a truly disgusting political tactic.
  • There are several points here:
    16 year olds are not little children. It is an age where you can vote in some elections in some countries, it is an age where political opinions are solidified and formed, it is an age where people generally have pretty good capcaity of rational thinking. Are 16 year olds adults? No, but it is not right to dismiss their mental capabilities just based on age.
  • Her parents being activists probably has played a role in her socialisation, but this does not necessarily make her her parents' puppets
  • She is clearly a highly functional autist. Yes, there are certain limitation that come with that condition, some of which she actually acknowledged (e.g. her tendency to think in blacks and whites), it does not invalidate her or her position though
  • Analytical does not mean being able to do climate change science or to comprehend it on the level of a professional. To properly analyse it as a layman (which most of us here, including me, also are by the way) means to read a breadth of scientific sources explaining the issue and the possible consequences, to weigh the measures taken, including using judgments from experts on that field, as to whether the goals are being reached this way and to come to a conclusion based on that. From my observation, she seems to have applied a reasonable amount of analytical work to form her opinion. Which does not make the opinion infalliable or anything, of course.
  • Analytical thinking informing the political position does not mean that you cannot be emotional when talking about your findings. If you concluded, by the way of rational analysis, that we all did something that severly endangers many people's lives, you would be fully in the right to react emotional towards out reluctance to change our behaviour, because you may be afraid or saddened by the expected outcome of the behaviour. Humans are emotional and rational beings, they can be both on the same issue. Being emotionally invested can of course lead to lacking distance and can negatively influence your capabilities of good analysis, but it is not a necessity.
  • The choice of CEOs is based on personal experience, because theoretical knowledge may not be sufficient to develop a good hunch, but as a CEO you cannot spend the time to fully analyse every issue that comes up, so many decisions must be made on wholly incomplete information, based on a trained feeling, rather than full analysis of the situation. On top of that, what is ideal in theory can have unwanted consequences the moment human emotion is involved, so in managing a huge group of humans such as a company, experience can be essential (and it can only come with time). Of course, similarly, this argument may apply to politics (and it does), but keep in mind that Thunberg is not a president / chancellor / prime minister, she is a prominent speaker of an interest group, so it is fine that her position does not come from a position of dealing with political issues of managing opposing interests
  • As a member of an interest group, it is absolutely not uncommon for her to be emotionally invested in the issue.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

MrRogers

Member
Feb 25, 2018
242
406
300
Whenever i see a story outta WAPO that is outside their typical globalist narrative, i presume that the article pre-published, has been on Bezos personal desk at somepoint, and is only approved by him because he has something to gain from it. I dont believe climate change as it is now as policy or belief, is being fought by the left honestly or appropriately.

But i guranfkintee-ya bezos and his goliath monstrosity of a company, plus his lifestyle, outputs more carbon and causes more actual tangible pollution then he could ever pay back in carbon credits. I doubt bezos likes the idea of a warren like figure being president. This story is merely wapo going "see! We have different op-onions..." while whispering...keep the boxed plastic shit from china flowin boys
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,428
4,182
570
  • There are several points here:
    16 year olds are not little children. It is an age where you can vote in some elections in some countries, it is an age where political opinions are solidified and formed, it is an age where people generally have pretty good capcaity of rational thinking. Are 16 year olds adults? No, but it is not right to dismiss their mental capabilities just based on age.
  • Her parents being activists probably has played a role in her socialisation, but this does not necessarily make her her parents' puppets
  • She is clearly a highly functional autist. Yes, there are certain limitation that come with that condition, some of which she actually acknowledged (e.g. her tendency to think in blacks and whites), it does not invalidate her or her position though
  • Analytical does not mean being able to do climate change science or to comprehend it on the level of a professional. To properly analyse it as a layman (which most of us here, including me, also are by the way) means to read a breadth of scientific sources explaining the issue and the possible consequences, to weigh the measures taken, including using judgments from experts on that field, as to whether the goals are being reached this way and to come to a conclusion based on that. From my observation, she seems to have applied a reasonable amount of analytical work to form her opinion. Which does not make the opinion infalliable or anything, of course.
  • Analytical thinking informing the political position does not mean that you cannot be emotional when talking about your findings. If you concluded, by the way of rational analysis, that we all did something that severly endangers many people's lives, you would be fully in the right to react emotional towards out reluctance to change our behaviour, because you may be afraid or saddened by the expected outcome of the behaviour. Humans are emotional and rational beings, they can be both on the same issue. Being emotionally invested can of course lead to lacking distance and can negatively influence your capabilities of good analysis, but it is not a necessity.
  • The choice of CEOs is based on personal experience, because theoretical knowledge may not be sufficient to develop a good hunch, but as a CEO you cannot spend the time to fully analyse every issue that comes up, so many decisions must be made on wholly incomplete information, based on a trained feeling, rather than full analysis of the situation. On top of that, what is ideal in theory can have unwanted consequences the moment human emotion is involved, so in managing a huge group of humans such as a company, experience can be essential (and it can only come with time). Of course, similarly, this argument may apply to politics (and it does), but keep in mind that Thunberg is not a president / chancellor / prime minister, she is a prominent speaker of an interest group, so it is fine that her position does not come from a position of dealing with political issues of managing opposing interests
  • As a member of an interest group, it is absolutely not uncommon for her to be emotionally invested in the issue.
So you agree that she's very young, is probably heavily influenced by her parents, has some mental hangups from being an autist, is acting very emotional which could indicate a lack of objectivity, but you think people to listen to her because...

...Why?

I already know the answer, it's because she agrees with your own ideology.

Kids shouldn't be used as political pawns. It was cringe when there was that "14 year old DESTROYS left wing" or whatever and it's especially cringe now because the left wants us to believe that this little autistic girl is a legitimate political figure instead of the puppet she is.

It's shitty.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,309
29,361
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
So you agree that she's very young, is probably heavily influenced by her parents, has some mental hangups from being an autist, is acting very emotional which could indicate a lack of objectivity, but you think people to listen to her because...

...Why?

I already know the answer, it's because she agrees with your own ideology.

Kids shouldn't be used as political pawns. It was cringe when there was that "14 year old DESTROYS left wing" or whatever and it's especially cringe now because the left wants us to believe that this little autistic girl is a legitimate political figure instead of the puppet she is.

It's shitty.
Um, a personal point of privilege, comrade.

There are ideologues who do believe the voting age should be lowered to include figures like Greta and are working to make that a reality.

State-run schools plus younger voting age makes for a dangerous combo: your country is weaker against ideological subversion since even a minority of voters can gradually trim or add to the curriculum to suit their ideology. This is the 'fabian' that our beloved somerset somerset talks about so frequently.

I don't think the people around Greta are 'using' her in the sense that they wish her ill will. I think they truly believe in her message and truly believe she represents a future voting bloc for their own ideology: the 13-16 year old student (in gov't-run school) who will puppet whatever important political stances the Left wishes. A Perfect Citizen Youth.

In a communist society, this might actually remain stable for awhile because the gov't is always reinforcing a singular mode of education and social behavior. In a fascist society, this leads to Hitler Youth. In a democratic society, such a combo (public school + younger voting age) becomes a tool for whatever radical movements happen to seize power in a given timeframe. Your culture and your social structure then begin to heavily sway based on who has seized power in government, instead of the (natural) opposite where the sways of culture and society are what inform and influence governance over the citizenry.

Koran a required "diversity and tolerance" subject in the UK when?
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
Um, a personal point of privilege, comrade.

There are ideologues who do believe the voting age should be lowered to include figures like Greta and are working to make that a reality.

State-run schools plus younger voting age makes for a dangerous combo: your country is weaker against ideological subversion since even a minority of voters can gradually trim or add to the curriculum to suit their ideology. This is the 'fabian' that our beloved somerset somerset talks about so frequently.

I don't think the people around Greta are 'using' her in the sense that they wish her ill will. I think they truly believe in her message and truly believe she represents a future voting bloc for their own ideology: the 13-16 year old student (in gov't-run school) who will puppet whatever important political stances the Left wishes. A Perfect Citizen Youth.

In a communist society, this might actually remain stable for awhile because the gov't is always reinforcing a singular mode of education and social behavior. In a fascist society, this leads to Hitler Youth. In a democratic society, such a combo (public school + younger voting age) becomes a tool for whatever radical movements happen to seize power in a given timeframe. Your culture and your social structure then begin to heavily sway based on who has seized power in government, instead of the (natural) opposite where the sways of culture and society are what inform and influence governance over the citizenry.

Koran a required "diversity and tolerance" subject in the UK when?
75 years ago teenagers were fighting world wars. These days, they’re for most intents and purposes still juveniles. If anything, the voting age should be increasing.
 

Weiji

Member
Jul 20, 2018
545
606
365
A young girl wants to fight for change and you go "lol girl get a life you don't have enough life experience".

That's quite sad.

Adults attacking Greta and other young people who fights for climate change action are just sad.
A 16 year old arguing that climate change has ruined her life when it's had literally zero impact on her is the essence of cringe.

Her age does not and should not shield her from criticism. At 16 I was reading Dostoevsky and lamenting the fate of mankind, we all know teenagers are retarded bags of hormones and angst, that's why they're not supposed to vote or drink or fuck.

Yet you seem to be saying we should listen to the very people that don't have basic rights because, news flash, they're idiots. If you wanted to prop this fool up as the next messiah of leftist ideology she should at least have an argument better then *angry face* "science!" She brings nothing new to the table and is being pushed forwards for the obvious reason "Think of the Children!"

Can't wait for the Trump tweet where he shits on her (correctly) and the left blows a gasket.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
15,171
25,107
1,400
Australia
A 16 year old arguing that climate change has ruined her life when it's had literally zero impact on her is the essence of cringe.

Her age does not and should not shield her from criticism. At 16 I was reading Dostoevsky and lamenting the fate of mankind, we all know teenagers are retarded bags of hormones and angst, that's why they're not supposed to vote or drink or fuck.

Yet you seem to be saying we should listen to the very people that don't have basic rights because, news flash, they're idiots. If you wanted to prop this fool up as the next messiah of leftist ideology she should at least have an argument better then *angry face* "science!" She brings nothing new to the table and is being pushed forwards for the obvious reason "Think of the Children!"

Can't wait for the Trump tweet where he shits on her (correctly) and the left blows a gasket.