|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull.
|
On January 20 2021 01:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting. If someone were getting really upset that a black high school student were making speeches on racial justice and relations, would you find a reasonable response to be that they need to go get a degree in social studies? To me that sounds like "I agree with you, now go away for a few years so I don't have to listen to what you're saying anymore". You can't just go get a degree, lol. I'm also unsure what you mean by saying there's a time and place for taking about an incoming climate crisis. Young people have a voice too. The fact that they're motivated enough to be active about it should be encouraging, not annoying.
The response to "she knows better than most" is quite correctly "stay in school, kiddo", yes. It's not a testament to the validity of the points or lack thereof, but just to the fact that lionizing a kid repeating the talking points they were fed isn't adding any new insights. And stopping climate change is not something you can just do any more than getting a degree is, so I suppose it's a fair retort.
She's a mascot, not an expert. Someone who you can parade around in the UN and on a highly polluting (but not carbon-emitting!) cruise ship to tell people about how you have to act on climate change. And there's "a time and a place" for characters like that, similar to why we have cartoons like Smokey the Bear telling you to help prevent forest fires. But she's not a very good one at that, so I can merely offer a "thanks, but no thanks."
|
|
|
On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye.
Will he be at the inauguration ceremony?
I'm wondering if he'll try to pardon anyone else too. Quite frankly, I'm surprised he's not pardoning literally everyone he can, including trying to pardon himself.
|
Norway28873 Posts
Where do you have it from that she is just repeating talking points she has been fed? Are you even remotely familiar with her story, or are you rather just rejecting her story because 'it seems implausible based on everything I know about teenage girls'?
And what specific part of her message is it you are rejecting (I assume that's what you mean by thanks, but no thanks'.) , and how big of a % of her message is that?
|
|
|
On January 20 2021 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye. Will he be at the inauguration ceremony?
He said he won't before the Twitter ban.
|
|
|
On January 20 2021 02:46 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye. Will he be at the inauguration ceremony? He said he won't before the Twitter ban.
Not surprising imo.
On January 20 2021 02:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2021 01:01 NewSunshine wrote:On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting. If someone were getting really upset that a black high school student were making speeches on racial justice and relations, would you find a reasonable response to be that they need to go get a degree in social studies? To me that sounds like "I agree with you, now go away for a few years so I don't have to listen to what you're saying anymore". You can't just go get a degree, lol. I'm also unsure what you mean by saying there's a time and place for taking about an incoming climate crisis. Young people have a voice too. The fact that they're motivated enough to be active about it should be encouraging, not annoying. The response to "she knows better than most" is quite correctly "stay in school, kiddo", yes. It's not a testament to the validity of the points or lack thereof, but just to the fact that lionizing a kid repeating the talking points they were fed isn't adding any new insights. And stopping climate change is not something you can just do any more than getting a degree is, so I suppose it's a fair retort. She's a mascot, not an expert. Someone who you can parade around in the UN and on a highly polluting (but not carbon-emitting!) cruise ship to tell people about how you have to act on climate change. And there's "a time and a place" for characters like that, similar to why we have cartoons like Smokey the Bear telling you to help prevent forest fires. But she's not a very good one at that, so I can merely offer a "thanks, but no thanks." It seems like the only people overly bothered by her are conservative males, especially middle aged ones. Do you think a lot of the anger could be unconscious bias? She is a young woman demanding change instead of asking politely. I mean no one really gets worked up about mascots, unless there is more too it.
With full-on climate change denial becoming less and less of an effective position for conservatives, any sort of ad hominem or moving of the goalposts becomes a more popular rebuttal. If they could scare away enough of the younger generation from politics and serious issues, then maybe the older people could hold onto power for just a bit longer.
|
On January 20 2021 02:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:46 Sent. wrote:On January 20 2021 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye. Will he be at the inauguration ceremony? He said he won't before the Twitter ban. Not surprising imo. Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2021 01:01 NewSunshine wrote:On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting. If someone were getting really upset that a black high school student were making speeches on racial justice and relations, would you find a reasonable response to be that they need to go get a degree in social studies? To me that sounds like "I agree with you, now go away for a few years so I don't have to listen to what you're saying anymore". You can't just go get a degree, lol. I'm also unsure what you mean by saying there's a time and place for taking about an incoming climate crisis. Young people have a voice too. The fact that they're motivated enough to be active about it should be encouraging, not annoying. The response to "she knows better than most" is quite correctly "stay in school, kiddo", yes. It's not a testament to the validity of the points or lack thereof, but just to the fact that lionizing a kid repeating the talking points they were fed isn't adding any new insights. And stopping climate change is not something you can just do any more than getting a degree is, so I suppose it's a fair retort. She's a mascot, not an expert. Someone who you can parade around in the UN and on a highly polluting (but not carbon-emitting!) cruise ship to tell people about how you have to act on climate change. And there's "a time and a place" for characters like that, similar to why we have cartoons like Smokey the Bear telling you to help prevent forest fires. But she's not a very good one at that, so I can merely offer a "thanks, but no thanks." It seems like the only people overly bothered by her are conservative males, especially middle aged ones. Do you think a lot of the anger could be unconscious bias? She is a young woman demanding change instead of asking politely. I mean no one really gets worked up about mascots, unless there is more too it. With full-on climate change denial becoming less and less of an effective position for conservatives, any sort of ad hominem or moving of the goalposts becomes a more popular rebuttal. If they could scare away enough of the younger generation from politics and serious issues, then maybe the older people could hold onto power for just a bit longer.
That is also my impression. There is this strong hate/desire to belittle Thunberg that doesn't seem to be there for most other public figures, and it is really hard to actually place why this occurs.
|
On January 20 2021 02:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Where do you have it from that she is just repeating talking points she has been fed?
It's clear enough by reading the speeches that the non-emotional aspects of it are little more than that. Which is fine as long as you treat her as "a kid giving motivational speeches" rather than someone providing meaningful expertise.
On January 20 2021 02:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Are you even remotely familiar with her story, or are you rather just rejecting her story because 'it seems implausible based on everything I know about teenage girls'?
Humor me. What aspects of her personal story are actually meaningful or relevant? I'm not really sure why I should care about anything beyond the basic info. I will admit to knowing little more than the basics because I really had no interest in digging deeper.
On January 20 2021 02:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And what specific part of her message is it you are rejecting (I assume that's what you mean by thanks, but no thanks'.) , and how big of a % of her message is that?
"Thanks but no thanks" refers to her as a mascot - someone who people want to parade around as some sort of meaningful symbol of climate change. I will admit that I find her a pretty distasteful symbol, one that encourages badly directed moralizing rather than a useful call to action. Regarding the speeches themselves, I find them notably naive - not unexpected for a child's speech - but not particularly objectionable on the specific facts. The real problem is that they fail to give a call to action that is... well, actionable.
The record will show that I've been generally very strongly in support of most practical measures for dealing with climate change (only real exception being certain empirically ineffective policies of greenwashing). It seems fairly clear to me that people who hype her up are not meaningfully advancing the cause of combating climate change but rather hyping up a personal story of questionable value. For a lot of these people, I'd wager that it's a lot easier to just latch up to a person you can hype up and lavish praise on than to tackle the actual ugly story that is meaningfully dealing with climate change.
|
|
|
Norway28873 Posts
Okay, well, her basic story is; she's a kid with asberger syndrome who started reading about climate change and she got really really really worried the more she read about it. She's really smart (something like top 1% gradewise despite skipping school one day a week), and having asberger (I'm paraphrasing her now), she also focuses all her energy on a singular topic.
Giving a forum-parallel, she makes me think of Moltkewarding. That is, the old one, not the current incarnation. Moltkewarding was also somewhere on the spectrum, he was incredibly brilliant. Myself, I'm a 36 year old history teacher. But there's no question that 18 year old Moltkewarding had a deeper understanding of history than what current day myself has.
Her parents were somewhat intellectual adults who enjoyed their somewhat jet-setty life of eating meat and travelling, but due to Greta's constant insistence, they felt compelled to stop doing either. (Her dad is now fully vegan!) Nothing about her story indicates that she's been parroting what older people have been telling her to say. If anything, from everything I've read, she's one of the most independent thinkers of her generation.
The biggest issue I have here is how much you seem to care about a person and how comfortable you are belittling a person that you seemingly only have a cursory understanding of - and that cursory understanding also seems to be entirely off. And not only that - but you then claim that other people who call you out are 'ignorant and insulting'. It's a pretty rare case of pot calling the kettle black - and I say that as someone who generally appreciates your cynical analysis.
Like- you clearly seemed annoyed by her, and you refer to her as smoky the bear. But does smoky the bear actually annoy you?
|
On January 20 2021 02:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye. Will he be at the inauguration ceremony? I'm wondering if he'll try to pardon anyone else too. Quite frankly, I'm surprised he's not pardoning literally everyone he can, including trying to pardon himself. the last I read on the self pardon is no that his legal counsel has strongly suggested against it. On the other pardons there is a long list, but not longer than others have done. But the big difference is his list has not come through official channels and rather people (often highly paid) getting his ear through his contacts or himself. So expect a lot of self serving and paid for pardons. This apparently was attempted with Bush but he was so sickened by it he refused to pardon anyone who asked outside of the official channels.
I honestly have no idea whether or not Trump generally listens to his legal counsel. I have no pulse on what proportion of advice Trump follows, what proportion he half-follows-while-still-making-things-slightly-worse-by-ranting-in-public, and what proportion he absolutely dismisses because he thinks he knows better. Quite frankly, I feel like Trump could easily justify (based on his mindset) preemptively pardoning everyone, under the guise that the untrustworthy mainstream media + antifa + black people + Democrats + Republicans would all frame him and his family for crimes he didn't commit. I don't think he'd be at all worried that a pardon might imply guilt, but would rather be a practical solution while he still has executive power (whether or not there is ever an actual problem - accusation/conviction - that is solved by these pardons).
On January 20 2021 03:10 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:46 Sent. wrote:On January 20 2021 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye. Will he be at the inauguration ceremony? He said he won't before the Twitter ban. Not surprising imo. On January 20 2021 02:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2021 01:01 NewSunshine wrote:On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting. If someone were getting really upset that a black high school student were making speeches on racial justice and relations, would you find a reasonable response to be that they need to go get a degree in social studies? To me that sounds like "I agree with you, now go away for a few years so I don't have to listen to what you're saying anymore". You can't just go get a degree, lol. I'm also unsure what you mean by saying there's a time and place for taking about an incoming climate crisis. Young people have a voice too. The fact that they're motivated enough to be active about it should be encouraging, not annoying. The response to "she knows better than most" is quite correctly "stay in school, kiddo", yes. It's not a testament to the validity of the points or lack thereof, but just to the fact that lionizing a kid repeating the talking points they were fed isn't adding any new insights. And stopping climate change is not something you can just do any more than getting a degree is, so I suppose it's a fair retort. She's a mascot, not an expert. Someone who you can parade around in the UN and on a highly polluting (but not carbon-emitting!) cruise ship to tell people about how you have to act on climate change. And there's "a time and a place" for characters like that, similar to why we have cartoons like Smokey the Bear telling you to help prevent forest fires. But she's not a very good one at that, so I can merely offer a "thanks, but no thanks." It seems like the only people overly bothered by her are conservative males, especially middle aged ones. Do you think a lot of the anger could be unconscious bias? She is a young woman demanding change instead of asking politely. I mean no one really gets worked up about mascots, unless there is more too it. With full-on climate change denial becoming less and less of an effective position for conservatives, any sort of ad hominem or moving of the goalposts becomes a more popular rebuttal. If they could scare away enough of the younger generation from politics and serious issues, then maybe the older people could hold onto power for just a bit longer. That is also my impression. There is this strong hate/desire to belittle Thunberg that doesn't seem to be there for most other public figures, and it is really hard to actually place why this occurs.
I've also seen plenty of sexist remarks made about her, but yeah I think that older American conservatives are worried about multiple American versions of Thunberg popping up and mobilizing over the next few years, young individuals that stand against regressive, outdated policies and perspectives. They would represent a new era of progress, as well as a huge voting bloc.
|
On January 20 2021 03:10 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 02:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:46 Sent. wrote:On January 20 2021 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2021 02:40 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2021 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Officially less than one full day left until Biden's inauguration.
You think you're bad at procrastination? Donald Trump only has 24 hours remaining to build a border wall, jail Hillary Clinton, pass his non-existent healthcare plan, and make America great again, and for over 74 years he's put off becoming a decent human being. I more wonder what last minute craziness he is going to pull. Seems like he has gone into big pouty baby sulk mode. There apparently is not even a plan for a big goodbye. Will he be at the inauguration ceremony? He said he won't before the Twitter ban. Not surprising imo. On January 20 2021 02:44 JimmiC wrote:On January 20 2021 02:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2021 01:01 NewSunshine wrote:On January 19 2021 23:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 19 2021 18:44 Artisreal wrote:On January 18 2021 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2021 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I genuinely feel like your opinion on Greta Thunberg is mostly formed from watching literally one soundbite from one sentence. (That was the one I referenced as being 'her opinion'. )
It's not that climate scientists need to listen to her - she's already stating what they are stating. Others need to listen to the climate scientists. But rather than listen to the climate scientists, some people instead choose to dismiss her as a child. Something I guess they are incapable of doing towards the climate scientists, whose authority isn't as easily dismissable because people are attached to the idea that authority follows age and title. I mean, she is a child - one who might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her. And she should be dismissed as such. Not to say that good climate policy isn't important or that we shouldn't do more than we've done, but dismissing the uninformed words of a child as the uninformed words of a child is 100% the correct thing to do. The fact that the actual content of her speech reeks of untenable naivete ("no matter the economic cost!") does not help. In short, you should probably find a better mascot for environmental policy than her. She's not a very good one. She is a person that spend years reading stuff about climate change and talking to people about climate change. She might be a child but she is much more of an expert on the matter than 99.9% on this board. Looking at what she actually says, she seems to know about enough to regurgitate talking points that adults (parents, science people, politicians, and so on) feed her. As I say, "might as well be parroting the smart-sounding lines that someone else fed her." If she wants to know more, she could go to school and get a degree in something climate-relevant like science, engineering, or even policy - but that might get in the way of alarmist naivete and the messaging thereof. I mean, there's a time and place for a mascot of climate change, but claiming she knows better because she can spout talking points is both ignorant and insulting. If someone were getting really upset that a black high school student were making speeches on racial justice and relations, would you find a reasonable response to be that they need to go get a degree in social studies? To me that sounds like "I agree with you, now go away for a few years so I don't have to listen to what you're saying anymore". You can't just go get a degree, lol. I'm also unsure what you mean by saying there's a time and place for taking about an incoming climate crisis. Young people have a voice too. The fact that they're motivated enough to be active about it should be encouraging, not annoying. The response to "she knows better than most" is quite correctly "stay in school, kiddo", yes. It's not a testament to the validity of the points or lack thereof, but just to the fact that lionizing a kid repeating the talking points they were fed isn't adding any new insights. And stopping climate change is not something you can just do any more than getting a degree is, so I suppose it's a fair retort. She's a mascot, not an expert. Someone who you can parade around in the UN and on a highly polluting (but not carbon-emitting!) cruise ship to tell people about how you have to act on climate change. And there's "a time and a place" for characters like that, similar to why we have cartoons like Smokey the Bear telling you to help prevent forest fires. But she's not a very good one at that, so I can merely offer a "thanks, but no thanks." It seems like the only people overly bothered by her are conservative males, especially middle aged ones. Do you think a lot of the anger could be unconscious bias? She is a young woman demanding change instead of asking politely. I mean no one really gets worked up about mascots, unless there is more too it. With full-on climate change denial becoming less and less of an effective position for conservatives, any sort of ad hominem or moving of the goalposts becomes a more popular rebuttal. If they could scare away enough of the younger generation from politics and serious issues, then maybe the older people could hold onto power for just a bit longer. That is also my impression. There is this strong hate/desire to belittle Thunberg that doesn't seem to be there for most other public figures, and it is really hard to actually place why this occurs.
Teenage girl, somewhat plain looking, autistic. A lot of strikes against her being carrier of an important message or a charismatic celebrity. I think a lot of people who either hate or lionize her do so for superficial reasons first but may build more elaborate justifications if needed for debate.
|
The message is far more important than the messenger, but as usual, people focus on the messenger. It's also a convenient way to forget about the message.
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
I would assume being a vocal young woman doesn’t help. I don’t think conservatives would be converted to being fans of AOC if she was a bloke, but I don’t think Alexander Ocasio-Cortez would get quite as much ire directed his way.
The Aspergers probably doesn’t help either.
I’m not so much referring to people who disagree with her, or don’t particularly like her tone but those that really seem to viscerally dislike her and attack her, or inject her into scenarios she wasn’t already present in.
|
On January 20 2021 03:48 Furikawari wrote:
The message is far more important than the messenger, but as usual, people focus on the messenger. It's also a convenient way to forget about the message.
Agreed. The additional irony, of course, is that conservatives don't actually care about expertise at all. The idea that Thunberg is a bad figurehead because she's not a climate scientist would only be a consistent argument if those same people hating on Thunberg actually trusted the overwhelming consensus of real climate scientists, who Thunberg is supposedly repeating anyway.
|
the message is indeed more important than the messenger. the message is shit. thats why we have an issue with greta, not because shes autistic.
the general gist of her entire agenda is "zero emissions now. if adults dont take action youre all garbage for sabotaging the younger generations' lives".
not only is her plan shit (actually, she doesnt have a plan. just a goal), but the way she also plays the child card and "adults bad" tactic in lieu of actually coming up with a coherent plan herself is not productive at all.
what she does on a global scale is the literal equivalent to kids nagging their parents for wanting something but not getting their way because they dont understand that somethings arent a matter of simple yes/no solutions.
im turning 28 this year so im hardly a middle aged conservative by the way. i just understand that whilst its important to be reminded of the urgeny of an issue, gretas role should stop at exactly that. she has no authority, power or particular expertise and she shouldnt be in the conversation with actual policy makers when they do their job
|
On January 20 2021 03:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2021 03:48 Furikawari wrote:
The message is far more important than the messenger, but as usual, people focus on the messenger. It's also a convenient way to forget about the message. Agreed. The additional irony, of course, is that conservatives don't actually care about expertise at all. The idea that Thunberg is a bad figurehead because she's not a climate scientist would only be a consistent argument if those same people hating on Thunberg actually trusted the overwhelming consensus of real climate scientists, who Thunberg is supposedly repeating anyway.
She is envoking fear and anger as her main weapons. She is a climate doomsday prophet, never communicating neuance or contamplating the often disastrous consequences of her demands of action.
The strategy is easy:
-A storm happens-human made climate change
-No storm happens-natural variation.
-A very warm winter-human made climate change.
-A freezing cold wintet-natural variation
-The se level rises very slowly-but it will turn soon because of human climate change, just wait!
It is bullet proof! We will be just fine, but the climate-doomsday goal-posts will probably keep moving some decades more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
