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
Click to expand...
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: 1,172
  • 1569527044335.png
    1569527044335.png
    450.1 KB · Views: 709
  • 1571204359689.png
    1571204359689.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 542
  • 1572839098505.png
    1572839098505.png
    2 MB · Views: 270
  • greta_108356458_gretaday5.jpg
    greta_108356458_gretaday5.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 1,079
  • 1580368884936.png
    1580368884936.png
    270.8 KB · Views: 318
  • 1582430340019.png
    1582430340019.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,086
  • 1609745217700.png
    1609745217700.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 638
  • 1616904732000.png
    1616904732000.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,306
  • 1658867385840.png
    1658867385840.png
    1 MB · Views: 75
Last edited:
Click to expand...
ANY graffiti artist who wants to become immediately world famous, PAINT A HITLER MUSTACHE ON THIS PAINTING.

Guaranteed fame. You could do it in 2 minutes TOPS with wheat paste and black paper.
 
Is it too late for the military to give them smallpox blankets?
 
It really bothers me how so much of her message is about how whites have ruined the world and the colored people are innocent heroes. The progressive rally point is always that skin color is the most important thing ever and even though you can't choose it or change it, you must be judged primarily by it. She actually wants colored people to all be at the front of her shows so she can sell the visual point. These people will always argue that "pocs are invisible so we need to actively counter that" but the practical effect is a yet more extreme pressure to excuse any nonwhite people from their responsibility for the state of the world. 100% of pocs didn't invent the smartphone and 99.999% of whites also didn't invent the smartphone, but both populations use it in abundance despite the destructive impact on world pollution and developing economies that producing them in mass quantities has. (Or if you want to get pedantic, blaming Steve Jobs for the modern smartphone denies even that figure because he was a half Syrian immigrant baby who happened to get adopted by a white couple.) Whites and nonwhites alike also drive cars, buy plane tickets, power their homes with power from coal plants, and both are equally valid to use the excuse that there's no other way to exist in our modern society because it's not practical to opt out of it. Yet she insists on selling the cartoonish narrative that some skin colors are excused for living that way while others aren't allowed, it's okay to make arbitrary judgments of which races are morally good and which ones are bad and apparently the only difference between her kind and "right wing" racists is which skin color is on top of the hierarchy - that a hierarchy should exist in the first place is something they all agree on, even though true anti-racists realize this is the most important dispute.

I swear to christ, I think Greta believes that my fucking Corolla will put out less pollution if I gift it to a poc even if that poc puts exactly as much gas into it and drives it as much as I do. I think that's what she and her kind want the peasantry to believe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom