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

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.

 

[ZeCommissar]

Greta Thunberg doesn't understand 'complex and different' modern world, says Putin

Greta Thunberg doesn't understand 'complex and different' modern worl…

archived 2 Oct 2019 22:34:05 UTC

archive.fo

He makes a good point. A lot of poorer nations are rapidly starting to catch up to the west in wealth, and the quickest way to do that is through mass industrialization that produces pollution. I highly doubt these people are going to tell African nations anytime soon "Stop advancing! You're killing the Earth!" and I EXTREMELY doubt said African nations are going to give a fuck about environmentalists anyway. If Africa is going on projected population numbers they are going to EXPLODE in numbers in the coming century, and Asia is ofc going to be high as hell as well.

 

[Stoneheart]

Pretty Asian Influencer calls Greta "So Damn Cringe".

Based bug person!

 

[AnOminous]

Greta Thunberg doesn't understand 'complex and different' modern world, says Putin

Greta Thunberg doesn't understand 'complex and different' modern worl…

archived 2 Oct 2019 22:34:05 UTC

archive.fo

“No one has explained to Greta that the modern world is complex and different,” Putin continued. “People in Africa or in many Asian countries want to live at the same wealth level as in Sweden.”

Dafuq, I love Putin now?

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

Dafuq, I love Putin now?

 

[Terrorist]

Virgin Greta vs Chad Kaczynski

As the environment goes to shit and people grow more alienated, they'll start to become tedpilled about the Industrial Revolution and its Consequences. Greta is there to prevent that kind of threat to the neoliberal globalist order. Nobody allowed to speak at Davos will ever challenge the status quo.

If you want to save our planet, become an ecofascist.

 

[A Grey Cat]

Greta Thunberg is ugly and I would not have sex with her.

Plenty of Muslim men invading her country would, I can already see them licking their lips Everytime she walked to school, and shesso blinded by woke parenting shes brainwashed to accept as "cultural enrichment" I almost feel sorry for her.. Almost

Edit: To everyone rating this Post "Islamic" it's probably the one time it's ever been appropriate to do so

 

[HTTP Error 404]

He makes a good point. A lot of poorer nations are rapidly starting to catch up to the west in wealth, and the quickest way to do that is through mass industrialization that produces pollution. I highly doubt these people are going to tell African nations anytime soon "Stop advancing! You're killing the Earth!" and I EXTREMELY doubt said African nations are going to give a fuck about environmentalists anyway. If Africa is going on projected population numbers they are going to EXPLODE in numbers in the coming century, and Asia is ofc going to be high as hell as well.

Won't happen. China is colonizing Africa. They'll have them in gulags and death camps in 10 years, and they'll be begging for the nice, casual days of apartheid.

 

[ZeCommissar]

Won't happen. China is colonizing Africa. They'll have them in gulags and death camps in 10 years, and they'll be begging for the nice, casual days of apartheid.

Lol china can barely throw it's weight around in it's own region, nevermind another continent. The strongest military in the world struggles to gain victory over sandniggers in the mountains and gooks in the jungle, so I highly doubt China will have any success. China might enslave Africa economically, but for them to start being that oppressive they would need military power there as well.

The only way I could mass colonization like that happening is if Chinks start going en masse to live in Africa, which they would start developing the area to suit their needs just like the Europeans did.

Besides this doesn't account for other developing nations outside of Africa, so the point is still kinda there.

 

[XYZpdq]

Lol china can barely throw it's weight around in it's own region, nevermind another continent. China might enslave Africa economically, but for them to start being that oppressive they would need military power there as well. The only way I could see that happening is if Chinks start going en masse to live in Africa.

Besides this doesn't account for other developing nations outside of Africa, so the point is still kinda there.

They're putting the roads in to drive the tanks down to wreck their shit as needed eventually.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Won't happen. China is colonizing Africa. They'll have them in gulags and death camps in 10 years, and they'll be begging for the nice, casual days of apartheid.

There's also Japan, they're trying to catch up to what China is doing:

Can Japan catch up in the economic scramble for Africa?

From used-car markets to giant infrastructure projects, Asia’s leading powers see more than a continent in need of aid.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Chasing China, Japan looks to Africa for trade and global influence

Both countries are competing for influence and benefits on the continent where China is a trade juggernaut. But they want not only raw materials and markets ‘but also respect and love’, according to an analyst.

www.scmp.com

 

[ZeCommissar]

They're putting the roads in to drive the tanks down to wreck their shit as needed eventually.

Sorry, I had just edited my post since I made another thought to sorta close that gap when you replied.

Do not underestimate the power of home territory. Tanks mean jack shit when you are fighting against someone who you think is a oppressor that MUST be killed. I highly doubt Africans would take too kindly if China started enforcing things that heavily there.

 

[XYZpdq]

Sorry, I had just edited my post since I made another thought to sorta close that gap when you replied.

Do not underestimate the power of home territory. Tanks mean jack shit when you are fighting against someone who you think is a oppressor that MUST be killed. I highly doubt Africans would take too kindly if China started enforcing things that heavily there.

ehh, I dunno. I recognize that but Chinese tenacity and willingness to just flatten everything with tanks and wipe everything out vs the legends of African resistance groups being REALLY fucking stupid makes me lean towards this being one of those where they say "that's why they play the game"

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

I highly doubt Africans would take too kindly if China started enforcing things that heavily there.

What are they going to do about it, though?

Who's going to lead them against the Han Empire? The Cubans and Russians are kind of out of the 'officering other people's armies' business.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

What are they going to do about it, though?

Who's going to lead them against the Han Empire? The Cubans and Russians are kind of out of the 'officering other people's armies' business.

The ching-chongs taking the ski jump carrier and 14 outrigger canoes to lead the invasion force?

Did the Ukrainians warranty that carrier for more than 10k miles?

 

[millais]

The ching-chongs taking the ski jump carrier and 14 outrigger canoes to lead the invasion force?

Did the Ukrainians warranty that carrier for more than 10k miles?

The former Admiral Kuznetsov is not ever being considered for active deployment by the PLAN, it's used solely as a training ship for their naval aviation corps.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

The ching-chongs taking the ski jump carrier and 14 outrigger canoes to lead the invasion force?

Did the Ukrainians warranty that carrier for more than 10k miles?

Good question. Does it matter if it never leaves Chinese waters when they've already built one more, and are building considerably more capable follow on carriers?

In what world would they even need to make an amphibious landing, when they're infiltrated into all Western and most African countries? If they do take power by force in one of their African colonies, they could have anti-ship ballistic missiles in place preventing any US carrier attack within days, while overseas Chinese in the US sabotage the war effort 'at home'.

A Chinese takeover in Africa would probably be the best possible outcome in terms of the world population problem.

 

[Stoneheart]

The ching-chongs taking the ski jump carrier and 14 outrigger canoes to lead the invasion force?

Invading an african country isnt that hard.

In what world would they even need to make an amphibious landing, when they're infiltrated into all Western and most African countries? If they do take power by force in one of their African colonies, they could have anti-ship ballistic missiles in place preventing any US carrier attack within days, while overseas Chinese in the US sabotage the war effort 'at home'.

War effort? nobody in the US is willing to go to war over africans...

 

[millais]

Good question. Does it matter if it never leaves Chinese waters when they've already built one more, and are building considerably more capable follow on carriers?

In what world would they even need to make an amphibious landing, when they're infiltrated into all Western and most African countries? If they do take power by force in one of their African colonies, they could have anti-ship ballistic missiles in place preventing any US carrier attack within days, while overseas Chinese in the US sabotage the war effort 'at home'.

A Chinese takeover in Africa would probably be the best possible outcome in terms of the world population problem.

And due to their intensive participation in the multinational anti-piracy naval campaigns off the Horn of Africa and UN peacekeeping missions all over Subsaharan Africa, the PLA/PLAN has more practice than one might expect in the technical minutiae of supporting expeditionary forces and associated logistical chain in that part of the world.

I don't doubt that they would be able to unilaterally stage some very basic power projection exercise there, even something bigger than their navy's armed evacuation of Chinese and other foreign nationals from Yemen a few years ago when the war there started to escalate.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

War effort? nobody in the US is willing to go to war over africans...

Africom admits to having over a hundred seperate operations poking around in African countries. While I doubt there is any particular interest in going to war with China about whether some locals are poked with bayonets by the PLA rather than the soldiers of some local warlord, I see no reason to believe a future President wouldn't get some special forces killed and make a big thing about it as part of an effort to get into a war with China.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/07/afri-o07.html

 

[ZeCommissar]

ehh, I dunno. I recognize that but Chinese tenacity and willingness to just flatten everything with tanks and wipe everything out vs the legends of African resistance groups being REALLY fucking stupid makes me lean towards this being one of those where they say "that's why they play the game"

What are they going to do about it, though?

Who's going to lead them against the Han Empire? The Cubans and Russians are kind of out of the 'officering other people's armies' business.

Putting aside the effectiveness of Guerrilla warfare against a technologically superior force, and the fact that as soon as China threatens one or more African nation with force of arms and all of the other ones will immediately get very suspicious of the Chinese "aid" they are receiving.

China has been setting this up for a few decades now, and they are being very careful in keeping up friendly appearances in the region. China is Africas largest trading partner, and they would be utter fools to try and ruin this by using violent methods. The days of taking resources by direct force are gone since it's far more profitable to do what China is trying to do.

Now lets say some African nations do nationalize their resources and stop trading with China....well that nations economy will probably start tanking again and that would give a incentive to its neighbors to not follow in it's footsteps. Which would mean only one or two nations break away trade treaties with China in the first place.

Now to answer the question of "what could Africa do to stop it if China changes their mind?". I'm not so sure to tell you the truth. What I am sure of that this will probably not happen in the first place since it would ruin Chinese investments in the region, and they would have to occupy nations on another continent while still dick-waving with the West.

China will keep up what it's doing and expand it's sphere of influence by deploying military assets to Africa. If they can do this with the support of the locals then they will be in a very advantageous position. Compare this to western colonialism where they just forced the locals to accept it.