Science Greta Thunberg Megathread - Dax Herrera says he wouldn't have a day ago (I somewhat doubt that)

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1609745385800.png

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering? How can a 16-year-old girl in plaits, who has dedicated herself to the not-exactly sinister, authoritarian plot of trying to save the planet from extinction, inspire such incandescent rage?

Last week, she tweeted that she had arrived into New York after her two week transatlantic voyage: “Finally here. Thank you everyone who came to see me off in Plymouth, and everyone who welcomed me in New York! Now I’m going to rest for a few days, and on Friday I’m going to participate in the strike outside the UN”, before promptly giving a press conference in English. Yes, her second language.

Her remarks were immediately greeted with a barrage of jibes about virtue signalling, and snide remarks about the three crew members who will have to fly out to take the yacht home.

This shouldn’t need to be spelled out, but as some people don’t seem to have grasped it yet, we’ll give it a lash: Thunberg’s trip was an act of protest, not a sacred commandment or an instruction manual for the rest of us. Like all acts of protest, it was designed to be symbolic and provocative. For those who missed the point – and oh, how they missed the point – she retweeted someone else’s “friendly reminder” that: “You don’t need to spend two weeks on a boat to do your part to avert our climate emergency. You just need to do everything you can, with everyone you can, to change everything you can.”

Part of the reason she inspires such rage, of course, is blindingly obvious. Climate change is terrifying. The Amazon is burning. So too is the Savannah. Parts of the Arctic are on fire. Sea levels are rising. There are more vicious storms and wildfires and droughts and floods. Denial is easier than confronting the terrifying truth.

Then there’s the fact that we don’t like being made to feel bad about our life choices. That’s human nature. It’s why we sneer at vegans. It’s why we’re suspicious of sober people at parties. And if anything is likely to make you feel bad about your life choices -- as you jet back home after your third Ryanair European minibreak this season – it’ll be the sight of small-boned child subjecting herself to a fortnight being tossed about on the Atlantic, with only a bucket bearing a “Poo Only Please” sign by way of luxury, in order to make a point about climate change.

But that’s not virtue signalling, which anyone can indulge in. As Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, and their-four-private-jets-in-11-days found recently, virtue practising is a lot harder.

Even for someone who spends a lot of time on Twitter, some of the criticism levelled at Thunberg is astonishing. It is, simultaneously, the most vicious and the most fatuous kind of playground bullying. The Australian conservative climate change denier Andrew Bolt called her “deeply disturbed” and “freakishly influential” (the use of “freakish”, we can assume, was not incidental.) The former UKIP funder, Arron Banks, tweeted “Freaking yacht accidents do happen in August” (as above.) Brendan O’Neill of Spiked called her a “millenarian weirdo” (nope, still not incidental) in a piece that referred nastily to her “monotone voice” and “the look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes”.

But who’s the real freak – the activist whose determination has single-handedly started a powerful global movement for change, or the middle-aged man taunting a child with Asperger syndrome from behind the safety of their computer screens?

And that, of course, is the real reason why Greta Thunberg is so triggering. They can’t admit it even to themselves, so they ridicule her instead. But the truth is that they’re afraid of her. The poor dears are terrified of her as an individual, and of what she stands for – youth, determination, change.

She is part of a generation who won’t be cowed. She isn’t about to be shamed into submission by trolls. That’s not actually a look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. It’s a look that says “you’re not relevant”.

The reason they taunt her with childish insults is because that’s all they’ve got. They’re out of ideas. They can’t dismantle her arguments, because she has science – and David Attenborough – on her side. They can’t win the debate with the persuasive force of their arguments, because these bargain bin cranks trade in jaded cynicism, not youthful passion. They can harangue her with snide tweets and hot take blogposts, but they won’t get a reaction because, frankly, she has bigger worries on her mind.

That’s not to say that we should accept everything Thunberg says without question. She is an idealist who is young enough to see the world in black and white. We need voices like hers. We should listen to what she has to say, without tuning the more moderate voices of dissent out.

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering? Because of what she represents. In an age when democracy is under assault, she hints at the emergency of new kind of power, a convergence of youth, popular protest and irrefutable science. And for her loudest detractors, she also represents something else: the sight of their impending obsolescence hurtling towards them.

joconnell@irishtimes.com
https://twitter.com/jenoconnell
https://web.archive.org/web/2019090...certain-men-1.4002264?localLinksEnabled=false
Found this thought-provoking indeed.
1658867339488.png
 

Attachments

  • 1567905639950.png
    1567905639950.png
    201.7 KB · Views: 1,167
  • 1569527044335.png
    1569527044335.png
    450.1 KB · Views: 705
  • 1571204359689.png
    1571204359689.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 539
  • 1572839098505.png
    1572839098505.png
    2 MB · Views: 267
  • greta_108356458_gretaday5.jpg
    greta_108356458_gretaday5.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 1,076
  • 1580368884936.png
    1580368884936.png
    270.8 KB · Views: 316
  • 1582430340019.png
    1582430340019.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,082
  • 1609745217700.png
    1609745217700.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 636
  • 1616904732000.png
    1616904732000.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,303
  • 1658867385840.png
    1658867385840.png
    1 MB · Views: 73
Last edited:
This thing is so transparently fake and gay, it's not really worth discussing, or even paying any mind. What is worth thinking about is whether her vegan diet is responsible for her stunted development. She looks like a sickly 11 year old, yet she's 16. Did you see that picture of her with Obama? She can't be over 5'. Presumably, she's going to look like this for the rest of her life.

How is everyone overlooking this? If it's not the veganism, what the hell is going on? We need answers.

It's going to make it all the more believable when Greta suddenly falls ill and dies after her celebrity fades and she stops making her parents money.
 
one of the worst parts about this is Greta has claimed she can SEE Carbon Dioxide (a colorless, odorless, invisible gas). So either this kid is straight-up delusional, or her idiot parents never thought to get her checked by the doctors for synesthesia. If this kid sees ANYTHING (particularly a COLOR) associated with the word "Carbon Dioxide" either from hearing it outside or from in her head, I'm betting it's fucking synesthesia.
Oh fucking brother!

What is worth thinking about is whether her vegan diet is responsible for her stunted development. She looks like a sickly 11 year old, yet she's 16. Did you see that picture of her with Obama? She can't be over 5'. Presumably, she's going to look like this for the rest of her life.
Judging by the responsibility her parents so far I imagine she probably took most of her meals out of an oreo box or as their known in that part of the world "Sweden, Yes! Biscuits". There was that obvious set up photo of "young boy blocks Greta from photographers" she looked the same age as the young boy who must've been like 10.
 
This thing is so transparently fake and gay, it's not really worth discussing, or even paying any mind. What is worth thinking about is whether her vegan diet is responsible for her stunted development. She looks like a sickly 11 year old, yet she's 16. Did you see that picture of her with Obama? She can't be over 5'. Presumably, she's going to look like this for the rest of her life.

How is everyone overlooking this? If it's not the veganism, what the hell is going on? We need answers.
She also looks very yellow. It's especially notable when she is next to that boy in the photo above. He is also fair colored but normal looking. She looks like she has jaundice. There are a zillion different causes of jaundice, but one of them is B-12 deficiency which is common in vegans. It would have to be very serious to cause it though. Alarming, at any rate.
 
This thing is so transparently fake and gay, it's not really worth discussing, or even paying any mind. What is worth thinking about is whether her vegan diet is responsible for her stunted development. She looks like a sickly 11 year old, yet she's 16. Did you see that picture of her with Obama? She can't be over 5'. Presumably, she's going to look like this for the rest of her life.

How is everyone overlooking this? If it's not the veganism, what the hell is going on? We need answers.
Greta has big eye bags for only being 16. That’s definitely not a good sign. If anyone is curious, there’s this YouTube channel called Vegan Deterioration by a former vegan. She compares before and after pictures of vegans. You start noticing a pattern of how long term vegans look after a while. The sunken eyes and lack of fat on the face are big signs. Also, Greta has thinning hair and a possibly receding hairline on top of it. She does not look healthy at all.

If being vegan has stunted Greta’s growth, it’s probably in her favor. She looks 11 or 12 in her pictures, despite being older. It makes any criticism against her look even worse because people will come to her defense and say, “why are you attacking a poor innocent child?”. If she can pass as being much younger than she actually is for a while, she can be used longer by higher ups to push their agenda. It’s pretty gross thinking about it. She’s being taken advantage of and it’s very easy to do to autistic people.
 
She also looks very yellow. It's especially notable when she is next to that boy in the photo above. He is also fair colored but normal looking. She looks like she has jaundice. There are a zillion different causes of jaundice, but one of them is B-12 deficiency which is common in vegans. It would have to be very serious to cause it though. Alarming, at any rate.
"I`m a big star now Mümmü and Patü can`t make me take my supplements in the middle of the ocean``
16952-nba6mo04-1-3-600.jpg
 
I think her going before congress is a good thing. You just know while this little dog and pony show was going on McConnell was in the next room quietly ramming through another dozen or so federal judges when nobody was looking.
 
It's going to make it all the more believable when Greta suddenly falls ill and dies after her celebrity fades and she stops making her parents money.

Or when the parents smell their 15 minutes are nearly up she'll get a chronic illness because you chose to take a nice quiet 15 minute drive to the shops instead of spending an hour and a half on a hot, crowded, smelly bus listening to someone else's obnoxious rap music and that one guy who insists on yelling at his phone in a horrible, horrible language.
 
Why is nuclear so bad in their minds? Do they really think that it, Oh idk, pollutes more on average than coal? Or is their hate purely ideological?
The fear of nuclear power mainly comes from the fact that when it fucks up, it really fucks up. It's not like an oil spill, which while highly catastrophic, you can clean up, and everything will go back to normal. When a meltdown happens, you pretty much have to abandon the area for years. Couple this with other scandals like the mysterious death of Karen Silkwood, and it's easy to see why nuclear power has so many detractors.

Personally, I don't blame people for being wary of nuclear power. I do think it is our best bet for solving the energy crisis, and is overall much less dangerous to the environment, but given how publicized, and frankly, how disastrous nuclear accidents are, I can see why people would be afraid of it.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't blame people for being wary of nuclear power. I do think it is our best bet for solving the energy crisis, and is an overall much less dangerous to the environment, but given how publicized, and frankly, how disastrous nuclear accidents are, I can see why people would be afraid of it.

Said publicizing is also fearmongering, I mean, can anyone give me a short list of fatalities/cancers from French nuclear accidents? Seeing as 2/3rds of their power grid is nuclear, there should be dozens by now given the unsafe and disastrous nature of nuclear, if you believe the press.
 
I'll take her seriously when she bitches at China, Russia, India, the nations in Africa and South America, that all pollute wildly with no regulations.

Till then, she take her six million dollar boat that probably polluted more than 12 average people will in their entire life to make and go back to her country and give talks about how importing 65 IQ motherfuckers isn't good for the environment.
 
I'll take her seriously when she bitches at China, Russia, India, the nations in Africa and South America, that all pollute wildly with no regulations.

Till then, she take her six million dollar boat that probably polluted more than 12 average people will in their entire life to make and go back to her country and give talks about how importing 65 IQ motherfuckers isn't good for the environment.
At the end of the day, she's taking orders from someone else... so whoever is behind it, clearly knows not to stir the pot in that direction.
 
The fear of nuclear power mainly comes from the fact that when it fucks up, it really fucks up. It's not like an oil spill, which while highly catastrophic, you can clean up, and everything will go back to normal. When a meltdown happens, you pretty much have to abandon the area for years. Couple this with other scandals like the mysterious death of Karen Silkwood, and it's easy to see why nuclear power has so many detractors.

Personally, I don't blame people for being wary of nuclear power. I do think it is our best bet for solving the energy crisis, and is overall much less dangerous to the environment, but given how publicized, and frankly, how disastrous nuclear accidents are, I can see why people would be afraid of it.

I think people have to be mindful that it's often due to mismanagement with nuclear incidents and that they can't be run like regular companies are. They have to have a massive amount of industry oversight. Also, you can't let overseas entities own them.

The technology for new nuclear though is safer than it ever has been. It's not as scary if you've got an educated society.

Like...Fukushima was a rarity, it wasn't as bad as it could have been if they used different tech and mismanagement after the fact was a massive part of it, where as Chernobyl was bad practice, older tech and blown way out of proportion.

Solar and wind and all that renewable shit isn't viable and anyone who thinks it is should be forced to live off of it, wholecloth and not participate in any of the fruits of a nuclear powered society.
Hydro is even worse. The damage to natural waterways is ridiculous. Nuclear has it's negatives, but it's the cleanest option. Not that this autistic downy looking swedecuck gives a fuck.
 
Back
Top Bottom