Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lionking

Getting more and more desperate.

I’ve listed protest movements which changed government actions for the better.

And I've listed protest movements that haven't.

Which kind of movement is Greta's? How do you know?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Game theory says otherwise. Cf the Prisoner dilemma. Seeking the optimal result only makes logical sense if you have some assurance other parties will as well.

Individual actions may be a show of good faith, but that’s it. Truly meaningful change can only come from centralized actions via government and international agreements.

Exactly. Yet some in this thread insist that governments simply can’t or won’t do anything, despite the fact that some are.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I've listed protest movements that haven't.

Which kind of movement is Greta's? How do you know?

Seriously? Martin Luther King and Gandhi should simply have stopped when they met with ignorant criticism?

Greta is part of the most important protest movement in the world today and you want her to stop. Shameful.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lionking

Seriously? Martin Luther King and Gandhi should simply have stopped when they met with ignorant criticism?

Greta is part of the most important protest movement in the world today and you want her to stop. Shameful.

I never said she should stop. In fact, I've said the opposite several times. How do you keep missing this?

I've also said that hyperbolic enthusiasm like "Greta is part of the most important protest movement in the world today" should maybe be dialed back a bit, to stay in line with actual results.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Game theory says otherwise. Cf the Prisoner dilemma. Seeking the optimal result only makes logical sense if you have some assurance other parties will as well.

Individual actions may be a show of good faith, but that’s it. Truly meaningful change can only come from centralized actions via government and international agreements.

Never too Small to Make a Difference ?

It might be a better approach to actually empower members of the public by letting them know their choices have consequences and benefits. It's always been the biggest weakness of the environmental movement, this over reliance on government and now we're seeing the results of that weakness.

Might as well drive an F350 until the government bans them, I can afford the gas.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It also doesn't mean the person with the Free Tibet bumper sticker is actually doing real good on the issue.

Pro Tibet sentiment in the US has successfully caused the US to take a pro Tibet stance. That seems like as much success as one could reasonably ask for from a US bomber sticker.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by lionking

Seriously? Martin Luther King and Gandhi should simply have stopped when they met with ignorant criticism?

Greta is part of the most important protest movement in the world today and you want her to stop. Shameful.

She's more like Occupy. Lots of yelling and sign carrying but in the end, she'll have little effect. COP25 has been more about sealing with the inevitable effects of climate change than preventing it because the good ship Prevention sailed decades ago.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Stout

She's more like Occupy. Lots of yelling and sign carrying but in the end, she'll have little effect. COP25 has been more about sealing with the inevitable effects of climate change than preventing it because the good ship Prevention sailed decades ago.

So is this a vote for us to "roll over and die" because it is hopeless and we should all give up trying to do anything? I presume not, but it comes through in that way...

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Stout

Never too Small to Make a Difference ?

Not in this situation. Individual actions are orders of magnitude below background noise. In most cases even these minimal individual actions are severally limited by what our current CO2 intensive practices allow.

The only difference one can reasonably expect to make is putting on a show of good faith to hopefully inspire the collective action that is truly needed.

Originally Posted by Stout

It might be a better approach to actually empower members of the public by letting them know their choices have consequences and benefits. It's always been the biggest weakness of the environmental movement, this over reliance on government and now we're seeing the results of that weakness.

In the prisoners dilemma both prisoners know they will both walk away free if they don’t betray the other. Nonetheless, the best decision for each is to betray and accept the resulting jail time.

Originally Posted by Stout

It's always been the biggest weakness of the environmental movement, this over reliance on government and now we're seeing the results of that weakness.

It’s not a weakness in the environmental movement, it’s an accurate reflection of how the world works. The problem is that the Ayn Rand inspired fantasy that individual choices can solve anything is factually incorrect and runs counter to how the world actually works.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by lionking

Seriously? Martin Luther King and Gandhi should simply have stopped when they met with ignorant criticism?

Greta is part of the most important protest movement in the world today and you want her to stop. Shameful.

In fact, given some of the demands asked in this thread of Thunberg, what did MLK Jr or Gandhi accomplish at the equivalent stages of their protests? Don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting Thunberg is comparable to these greats, but the first step for all three was to speak out and to begin to gain a following. It took both MLK Jr ad Gandhi many years to translate that following into actual changes in laws or into independence. How much less time are Thunberg's detractors allowing her to begin to achieve concrete examples of her goals (beyond changing the personal carbon footprints of her followers, which I suggest has probably already been achieved for many)?

Knowing I am leaving myself open to attack because of this comparison, I note I am applying it narrowly to the timing of beginning a protest and having actual changes happen, not that Thunberg is in any way in the same league as these greats. I am also well aware of the personal sacrifices made by MLK Jr and Gandhi. I am aware of the urgency involved in climate change, but I can't see it is Thunberg's fault that governments respond slowly, or ways she can ensure instant responses. But whack away if you wish.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Giordano

So is this a vote for us to "roll over and die" because it is hopeless and we should all give up trying to do anything? I presume not, but it comes through in that way...

I suppose it could seem that way if you're 100% invested in the only way to combat climate change is through political action. Today, I could walk into downtown for a meeting I have to go to, or I could drive.

Which decision will result in a smaller amount of fossil fuel being burned and less CO2 being squirted into the atmosphere an the close of business today.

For the record, it's not a nice day out, big chance of rain. I don't care about getting rained on when I'm coming home but I sure don't want to sit in some board room soaking wet, like I had to last year.

Screw it, I'm walking...see ya, bye.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Giordano

In fact, given some of the demands asked in this thread of Thunberg, what did MLK Jr or Gandhi accomplish at the equivalent stages of their protests? Don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting Thunberg is comparable to these greats, but the first step for all three was to speak out and to begin to gain a following. It took both MLK Jr ad Gandhi many years to translate that following into actual changes in laws or into independence. How much less time are Thunberg's detractors allowing her to begin to achieve concrete examples of her goals (beyond changing the personal carbon footprints of her followers, which I suggest has probably already been achieved for many)?

Knowing I am leaving myself open to attack because of this comparison, I note I am applying it narrowly to the timing of beginning a protest and having actual changes happen, not that Thunberg is in any way in the same league as these greats. I am also well aware of the personal sacrifices made by MLK Jr and Gandhi. I am aware of the urgency involved in climate change, but I can't see it is Thunberg's fault that governments respond slowly, or ways she can ensure instant responses. But whack away if you wish.

It doesn’t really matter if Greta is remembered as the voice that inspired action on climate change, one of many prominent voices or just a minor footnote in the history books.

Regardless of who’s name gets mentioned in the history books, If Gandhi had been the only voice regarding India’s status his cause would have failed. Likewise if MLK had been the only voice calling for civil rights his cause would have failed. Same deal for Darwin, if he had been the only voice extoling evolution, we wouldn’t hear a thing about it today.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Giordano

In fact, given some of the demands asked in this thread of Thunberg, what did MLK Jr or Gandhi accomplish at the equivalent stages of their protests?

An excellent question. Maybe the mistake Greta's fans are making is trying to ensure she gets all the credit due to a successful Ghandi or King, with the benefit of decades of hindsight and social change.

Yes, they actually changed things. They're notable not because they tried, but because they succeeded.

Has Greta succeeded yet? Maybe we should hold off on the Ghandi/King comparisons, and the attendant butthurt, until we know if she's succeeding.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

It doesn’t really matter if Greta is remembered as the voice that inspired action on climate change, one of many prominent voices or just a minor footnote in the history books.

Regardless of who’s name gets mentioned in the history books, If Gandhi had been the only voice regarding India’s status his cause would have failed. Likewise if MLK had been the only voice calling for civil rights his cause would have failed. Same deal for Darwin, if he had been the only voice extoling evolution, we wouldn’t hear a thing about it today.

Quick. Name three leading voices of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If you think that was nonsense, you should have read the part you took the time to snip out.

Pardon me for snipping! I concur, that part was nonsense too!

Quote:

We are long past sounding the alarm. 'Spreading awareness' is not the issue anymore. Taking action is where we are at.

I'm highly dubious that the masses are fully informed. One can be aware of GW without appreciating the urgency.

One indicator that you're wrong is virtually nothing is being done by the US government. Quite the opposite.

Quote:

Greta is essentially pointing out that smoke detectors indicate fire, and we should pay attention, while standing in a house that is burning down. It's just stupid. We are way, way, past all that.

If we were way, way past that, we (the US government) would be taking action. And yet we're not. Quite the opposite.

Quote:

President Trump will not change his positions from her generic preaching and condemnations. I can pretty much guarantee that. Johnny-come-lately teens just discovering climate change are yesterday's news.

Nor will he change positions on a wide array of other topics. And yet we speak out here on this very forum, trying in our own small way.

Quote:

So as I said: what do we do now? Keep cheering Greta to feel like we are hip while doing not a goddamed thing of substance?

I haven't cheered Greta. I will though; here you go: Right on Greta! I can't fathom why that would bother anyone.

What are the things of substance, and how is it you think you know what I or anyone else has or hasn't done?

Quote:

Seems to be the fashion. And that fashion is more than a little grating to some of us.

Maybe it wouldn't be grating if you didn't leap to unfavorable conclusions about peoples' actions and motivations.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Quick. Name three leading voices of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Why would I know the leaders of a movement I never cared about in the first place?

Even if I cared, why would it be a requirement that every cause have an identifiable person attached to it?

Even if I cared about the movement and followed people involved with it, what makes you think you’d know any of the ones I follow? Case in point I don’t think I’ve heard Greta say a dozen words and outside the quotes in this thread I don’t think I’ve read any transcripts either. The people that come to mind for me when it comes to climate change are James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and Tamino (Not his actual name obviously, but it’s more identifiable and has more attributed to it than Grant Foster)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Why would I know the leaders of a movement I never cared about in the first place?

My point is that not all activism is created equal, and having a plurality of leading voices is not necessarily a sign of success.

The fact that you never even cared about Occupy Wall Street, even though it was activism, and even though it had a plurality of voices, is exactly what I'm getting at.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The number of people demanding their political leaders take action.

How are those numbers looking?

In the countries that matter, that's called voting.

As I mentioned earlier and you ignored:

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

You keep suggesting we start collecting all these pollution taxes, which isn't going to happen, because the people who vote on these issues are not going to give up on the things they want that cause all this pollution...

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Giordano

In fact, given some of the demands asked in this thread of Thunberg, what did MLK Jr or Gandhi accomplish at the equivalent stages of their protests? Don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting Thunberg is comparable to these greats, but the first step for all three was to speak out and to begin to gain a following. It took both MLK Jr ad Gandhi many years to translate that following into actual changes in laws or into independence. How much less time are Thunberg's detractors allowing her to begin to achieve concrete examples of her goals (beyond changing the personal carbon footprints of her followers, which I suggest has probably already been achieved for many)?

Knowing I am leaving myself open to attack because of this comparison, I note I am applying it narrowly to the timing of beginning a protest and having actual changes happen, not that Thunberg is in any way in the same league as these greats. I am also well aware of the personal sacrifices made by MLK Jr and Gandhi. I am aware of the urgency involved in climate change, but I can't see it is Thunberg's fault that governments respond slowly, or ways she can ensure instant responses. But whack away if you wish.

This reads like you are describing MLK as a "voice" and what he endured was a consequence of those acts of speech.

There was actual organization. Boycotting the city bus is not like boycotting a chick fil a. It is an essential service you need to coordinate a replacement for.

[theprestige]

Kind of like how Greta had to coordinate a replacement for her plane ride.

[dudalb]

I see the GW deniers have taken over this thread.

[Skeptical Greg]

Perhaps you could confront one of the GW deniers with a good counter argument for one of their posts..

Since they have taken over the thread, it should be easy pickings..

Of course this must all be in the context of the discussion regarding Greta, or it will be deemed off-topic..

[a_unique_person]

And Andrew Bolt refers to Greta again. Poor man. He seems to be suffering great torment.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Giordano

In fact, given some of the demands asked in this thread of Thunberg, what did MLK Jr or Gandhi accomplish at the equivalent stages of their protests? Don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting Thunberg is comparable to these greats, but the first step for all three was to speak out and to begin to gain a following. It took both MLK Jr ad Gandhi many years to translate that following into actual changes in laws or into independence. How much less time are Thunberg's detractors allowing her to begin to achieve concrete examples of her goals (beyond changing the personal carbon footprints of her followers, which I suggest has probably already been achieved for many)?

Knowing I am leaving myself open to attack because of this comparison, I note I am applying it narrowly to the timing of beginning a protest and having actual changes happen, not that Thunberg is in any way in the same league as these greats. I am also well aware of the personal sacrifices made by MLK Jr and Gandhi. I am aware of the urgency involved in climate change, but I can't see it is Thunberg's fault that governments respond slowly, or ways she can ensure instant responses. But whack away if you wish.

Why would you apologise? Thunberg is definitely on the same scale as MLK and Ghandi and she doesn't have all the baggage they came with. Ghandi and MLK had the exact same thing happen, people tried to discredit them. In MLK's case those people had the help of the FBI. Today we have boomers on the interwebs and that is a lot more powerful than the FBI in the 1960's.

In a few years, when Greta is recognised for the work she did, the anti-Greta wankers will all be claiming to have supported her from day one just like the racist wankers of today will claim they supported MLK back in the day.

Thunberg's entire message is that ordinary people need to demand that their political leaders unite behind the science of global warming and do something about it. That's what the anti-Thunberg crowd is arguing against. Anti-Thunberg members of this forum can hardly call themselves skeptics.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

And Andrew Bolt refers to Greta again. Poor man. He seems to be suffering great torment.

He appears to be just one among many. Several in this very thread just cannot get her out of their heads.

[IsThisTheLife]

On another forum discussion, some-one wrote;

Quote:

Early stages of attempts to get 16 year olds voting and more politically active. Because you can't get people who've been around a while to actually support this nonsense.

Yes. I've already suggested an objective - alienating 'youth' (teens) from the 'adults' who stole their dreams and childhood - but if voting-ages (and age-of-maturity generally) in first world counties were to be dropped to sixteen (and this is being energetically sought/lobbied for by the left) another group of "victims" would be added to the progressive voting-block. Again, this all falls within the cultural marxist playbook.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Perhaps you could confront one of the GW deniers with a good counter argument for one of their posts.

Counter argument to what? It isn't like they are actually making an argument, they are simply attacking a 16 year old girl who is doing what she is passionate about. Attacking Thurnberg saves them having to defend their lies and half truths about the climate.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Again, this all falls within the cultural marxist playbook.

You think so? Maybe you could produce this "cultural marxist [sic] playbook" for us to peruse. It sounds more like incel rhetoric where they foam at the mouth over another women who will never want to have a relationship with them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How are those numbers looking?

In the countries that matter, that's called voting.

As I mentioned earlier and you ignored:

If both sides of politics offer the same deal then it will happen.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I was waiting to find out what you meant by "taking action", and confess to say upon reading that last paragraph it's one of the very few times I've actually "laughed out loud" at something I've read on the internet.

To catch you up, talking about taking action has been frowned upon by ye olde moderation team. There's a perfectly quiet thread on the topic that you are ignoring on this very subforum, should you want to discuss it. Also, had you even read this thread, I have already ventured opinions on what needs to be done, mostly in the big but also in the little pictures. What I do for my small part will obviously (to all but you) not be a standalone solution. But it beats the living hell out of preaching and cheering for Greta. Even the smallest of efforts trumps empty virtue signalling.

Quote:

Congratulations, you've been fooled by a decades-long propaganda campaign designed and spearheaded by the fossil-fuel and plastics-production industries to promote the lie that the actual way to "save the environment" - and now, lately, "do something about climate change" - is not increased government regulation by way of campaigning at the ballot box and industry-changing activism, but rather quiet and nondisruptive personal action on the individual citizen level. Just "do your part" by sorting your trash and using cloth grocery bags and if everybody just did that the environment would be fine.

Um...no. As I and others have said...repeatedly...we need to do it all. But more importantly, we needed to have done it decades ago. We are headed bravely into damage control territory now.

And while I appreciate your condescension, my representatives in congress are frequently treated to my communications, to the point of my name probably being on a list or something. As is my electric provider, who knows quite clearly my support for the Atlantic City wind farm and it's proposed expansion. But thanks for suggesting that my partial plans for this afternoon represent every and all efforts I think need to be made. Gold star for you.

Quote:

You think that the proper measure of Thunberg's success, or lack thereof, is whether the adults at the government and international bodies to which she is invited to speak take some kind of relevant and meaningful action immediately afterwards. Because she gave a speech at the UN but nothing binding came out of it, or because she spoke before the US Congress and they didn't pass any laws, that proves her talk is ultimately pointless. It is because you misunderstand who her audience is, that your metric is useless and doesn't say what you think it does.

Again, no. I didn't suggest any of that. What I think is what I have actually posted, and not whatever the voices you are hearing said you have misinterpreted.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How are those numbers looking?

In the countries that matter, that's called voting.

As I mentioned earlier and you ignored:

Step one: Convince politicians to take serious action on climate change and include their position in their election platform.
Step two: Vote for those politicians.

Which countries do not matter? And what is it called there?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by varwoche

Pardon me for snipping! I concur, that part was nonsense too!

I'm highly dubious that the masses are fully informed. One can be aware of GW without appreciating the urgency.

One indicator that you're wrong is virtually nothing is being done by the US government. Quite the opposite.


If we were way, way past that, we (the US government) would be taking action. And yet we're not. Quite the opposite.

Not sure if you mean this seriously...

Are you actually suggesting that the government...our government...is unaware of the climate crisis?

Or even better...that they would certainly do the right thing if they did??

Upon reflection, you could not possibly be serious.

Quote:

Nor will he change positions on a wide array of other topics. And yet we speak out here on this very forum, trying in our own small way.

I haven't cheered Greta. I will though; here you go: Right on Greta! I can't fathom why that would bother anyone.

Great, you cheered! Rah rah, you go girl! Now what? Have you checked the "I cared about the climate' box for the day? It bothers me, for one, because...as I keep repeating...endless talking and no action is annoying as hell. Don't tell me how great Greta is. Let's talk solutions and actions.

Quote:

What are the things of substance, and how is it you think you know what I or anyone else has or hasn't done?

I would direct such queries to the (as I keep pointing out) stone silent thread on the topic. This one, as the mods have reminded us, is for the Mighty Thunberg. May she continue to fly people across the globe to 'send the message' that carbon neutral travel is hard to do. We didn't know that, either.

Quote:

Maybe it wouldn't be grating if you didn't leap to unfavorable conclusions about peoples' actions and motivations.

Maybe someone will restore my faith in people. It's not happening here.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by theprestige

So what is the proper measure of Thunberg's success? If it's not policy changes, and it's not individual action, then what is it? Number of meaningless awards received?

I haven't participated in this thread up till now, but surely you understand that this may take time and results are unlikely to be achieved immediately.

Also, it appears that Greta herself is not under any illusions on this point:

Greta Thunberg says school strikes have achieved nothing

Quote:

The global wave of school strikes for the climate over the past year has “achieved nothing” because greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise, Greta Thunberg has told activists at UN climate talks in Madrid.

Thousands of young people were expected to gather at the UN climate conference and in the streets of the Spanish capital on Friday to protest against the lack of progress in tackling the climate emergency, as officials from more than 190 countries wrangled over the niceties of wording in documents related to the Paris accord.

In the four years since the landmark agreement was signed, greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 4% and the talks this year are not expected to produce new commitments on carbon from the world’s biggest emitters.

Thunberg, whose solo protest in Sweden in 2018 has since snowballed into a global movement, spoke at a press conference before a march through the centre of Madrid. She said that although schoolchildren had been striking around the world, this “has not translated into action” from governments.

So if your point is that her actions have not so far achieved anything, it seems that she is in full agreement with you.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

In the countries that matter, that's called voting.

I don't know if Canada is one of the countries that matter but when Thunberg spoke at various rallies during the recent election campaign, deniers (Conservatives) called for her to be arrested, and deported, for tampering with our election.

Anything to deflect from the issue of climate change.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by qayak

I don't know if Canada is one of the countries that matter but when Thunberg spoke at various rallies during the recent election campaign, deniers (Conservatives) called for her to be arrested, and deported, for tampering with our election.

Anything to deflect from the issue of climate change.

Thought "deplatforming" was ok and a good tactic with the left?

[cullennz]

All good she got the Time thing, but surprised she got it when one of the other main finalists were the Hong Kong protesters.

Guess it is a fashion thing like the time "me to" got it.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Giordano

It took both MLK Jr ad Gandhi many years to translate that following into actual changes in laws or into independence. How much less time are Thunberg's detractors allowing her to begin to achieve concrete examples of her goals (beyond changing the personal carbon footprints of her followers, which I suggest has probably already been achieved for many)?

Theprestige was unaware of her very existence until this thread was started in August, so it seems a bit unfair to say she hasn't achieved as much in the last three months as MLK and Gandhi did in years.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by cullennz

All good she got the Time thing, but surprised she got it when one of the other main finalists were the Hong Kong protesters.

Guess it is a fashion thing like the time "me to" got it.

Global Warming is a fashion thing?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Global Warming is a fashion thing?

I think if you read my post again you would find Greta is a fashion thing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I think if you read my post again you would find Greta is a fashion thing.

If she was a prominent promoter of fashion she wouldn't have got the award.