Cont: Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed - part 3

[theprestige]

I see the DDBC is taking a break from solving global climate change and peace in the Middle East, to solve homophobia.

Is there anything this woman can't do, in her "never has to pay for drinks" era?

 

[Helen]

I see the DDBC is taking a break from solving global climate change and peace in the Middle East, to solve homophobia.

Is there anything this woman can't do, in her "never has to pay for drinks" era?

Ah yes, young people who have the courage of their cnvictions and use their platforms to to speak up for human rights are sooo annoying and ridiculous!

 

[aniri]

Ah yes, young people who have the courage of their cnvictions and use their platforms to to speak up for human rights are sooo annoying and ridiculous!

I do indeed find them annoying because their convictions are carefully selected. They never seem to involve the mass support of Ukraine, for instance. Or the Uyghurs in China. Or the women of Iran. Or the victims of the Sudanese civil war. Or the victims of many other horrible things that are going on the world.

 

[Helen]

So they have to constantly care about evrything that is badly wrong in the world, and also do so very publically, or not open their mouths at all, to not annoy you? As for Greta Thunberg in particular, she has actually spoken out forcefully about the war in Ukraine, for instance.

 

[arthwollipot]

So they have to constantly care about evrything that is badly wrong in the world, and also do so very publically, or not open their mouths at all, to not annoy you? As for Greta Thunberg in particular, she has actually spoken out forcefully about the war in Ukraine, for instance.

Also Palestine, Armenia and Algeria.

I literally got those three links from Wikipedia by the way. Took me about a minute and a half. It's not like this information is hard to come by.

 

[theprestige]

So they have to constantly care about evrything that is badly wrong in the world, and also do so very publically, or not open their mouths at all, to not annoy you? As for Greta Thunberg in particular, she has actually spoken out forcefully about the war in Ukraine, for instance.

Google's AI summary indicates her primary - perhaps exclusive - focus has been on the ecological damage the war has caused. She condemns Russia for destroying the Kakhova dam, due to the ecological harm that resulted. Which, all well and good, and certainly 'ecocide' is well within her wheelhouse, but it's not really a forceful speaking out about the people of Ukraine and what they need to survive and win - or even that they should win.

And that's relatively old news. What has she done for Ukraine lately? Nothing. Which is probably fine; everything she does is performative and useless anyway.

 

[Helen]

You deem it useless, I do not know if it is. And yes, activism is often perceived as performative (perhaps especially by those who do not agree with the activists), and thus apparently without merit, and while I don't follow her all that closely, I am Swedish, and from what I have read about her, she is not just a performer. Be that as it may, I do find it very strange, and also quite disingenuous, to criticise her for the causes she does not champion as actively and/or publicly. It would be impossible for anyone to be as committed about every breach of human rights in the world. It seems to me that you are saying that if you can’t be pursue every worthy cause, you should really just sit back and keep your mouth shut. That would not be performative, I will grant you that, but it would certainly be pretty useless.

But then it makes me happy to see young people who care about the future, and about what happens to the the world and yhose who live here, and I do not find them annoying, not even when they are very earnest and naive about their beliefs. It gives me hope.

 

[aniri]

So they have to constantly care about evrything that is badly wrong in the world, and also do so very publically, or not open their mouths at all, to not annoy you? As for Greta Thunberg in particular, she has actually spoken out forcefully about the war in Ukraine, for instance.

(1) They have right to do what they want (within law). But I have right to be annoyed by the choice of their topics. This is because I find it stupid and not really a priority.

(2) I also think that their activities aim at destabilizing the “Western” society. In the modern bipolar world, this ultimately benefits all sorts of cannibalist regimes, including Putin’s Russia, China, Iran etc. I wonder what you and Greta are going to say when Russia attacks Sweden ...

(3) I said "mass support". Have you seen any mass protest rallies in support of Ukraine organized by Greta and company? Or a humanitarian aid mission to the Ukrianian territoiries torn by war organized by her? Or any statements by climate acrivists regarding the enviromental desaster in Zaporizhzhia? If they exist, they are certainly very marginal.

 

[Helen]

Again, I find it really strange to criticise her for not campaigning about what you think are the most important issues; she has chosen hers. But as you say, that is your right. I am not even annoyed by you, just puzzled. I admire people who have the courage of their convictions, even if their convictions do not align perfectly with mine; I do not agree with Greta all the time, I do not follow her on social media, but from what I can see of her, she is someone who actively and vocally tries to bring about change where change is needed. She happens to have a platform, especially amongst young people, and she uses it. Good for her. She might actually change the direction of the world, just a tiny, tiny bit. That is how it works.

The support for Ukraine, and the opposition to Russia, is very strong here, and there really is no need for Greta in particular to arrange mass protests; there are already many people doing that. And as for what I think and feel about Russia, or the other causes you write about, that is neither here nor there. I want people who feel strongly about human rights to do what they can to protect them. I did when I was young (which is a long time ago), and I applaud anyone who does. There are a lot of things in this world to be annoyed by, I enjoy being annoyed by trivia on a daily basis, but people who are committed to do something about the wrongs they see are not in that category. I am more annoyed, and possibly a little saddened, by the people who do nothing. Or who direct their ire at those who do.

And while I may not agree with her on everything, I do agree that climate change is the greatest existential threat to all of us.

 

[aniri]

Again, I find it really strange to criticise her for not campaigning about what you think are the most important issues; she has chosen hers. But as you say, that is your right. I am not even annoyed by you, just puzzled. I admire people who have the courage of their convictions, even if their convictions do not align perfectly with mine; I do not agree with Greta all the time, I do not follow her on social media, but from what I can see of her, she is someone who actively and vocally tries to bring about change where change is needed. She happens to have a platform, especially amongst young people, and she uses it. Good for her. She might actually change the direction of the world, just a tiny, tiny bit. That is how it works.

The support for Ukraine, and the opposition to Russia, is very strong here, and there really is no need for Greta in particular to arrange mass protests; there are already many people doing that. And as for what I think and feel about Russia, or the other causes you write about, that is neither here nor there. I want people who feel strongly about human rights to do what they can to protect them. I did when I was young (which is a long time ago), and I applaud anyone who does. There are a lot of things in this world to be annoyed by, I enjoy being annoyed by trivia on a daily basis, but people who are committed to do something about the wrongs they see are not in that category. I am more annoyed, and possibly a little saddened, by the people who do nothing. Or who direct their ire at those who do.

And while I may not agree with her on everything, I do agree that climate change is the greatest existential threat to all of us.

I think that:

(1) Her choice of issues shows serious lack of understanding of what is really important in the modern world. It’s rather sad for someone who wants to improve the world (apparently).
(2) It has more to do with what counts as “trendy” and boils down to a teenage-style rebellion against what is perceived as establishment. The choice is laughably predictable. I strongly suspect, for instance, that none of these people will ever think of expressing their anger because of the Israeli hostages still being retained by Hamas. Or the death of 82 year old Karen Diamond today, who died as the result of the horrible burns she received during the recent terrorist attack in Boulder. Why should they, these are just Jews!
(3) In fact, even if you deal with the issues they care about, you can do it in a much more intelligent way and actually create something, not just “raise voice” (but of course creating is more difficult that destroying …)
(4) Their activities may ultimately do more damage than good, see a hint in my previous post (but this is a long topic which I do not really wish to discuss here).

In addition, I find her incredibly hypocritical. I don’t remember her exact expression now, but I think she said at some stage that her childhood was stolen from her or something like that. However, millions of people (and children) in this world can only dream of having the life Greta has had – a privileged girl, who lives in one of the wealthiest and safest countries in the world, comes from a well-off family, has never been hungry, thirsty or deprived of medical care, has right to freely express her opinion without being afraid of serious repressions, has never been subjected to forced marriage, has never had bombs falling on her house, and so on. Sure she can feel that her childhood was stolen but I suspect that to these people her words sound like the devaluing of real human sufferings. As one teenager from another country told me recently, “If we skip school and go to protest instead, we would be expelled and our teachers would be in jail”. That’s how they feel.

 

[Helen]

So you disagree with her. Fine. You think she is privileged. So do I, so does she, and she could of course just keep her mouth shut and enjoy that privilege, and have a good time. Instead she speaks out about the things she cares about, trying to speak for those who are not as privileged as she is, and that is what you don't like? Apart from the fact that you think she should speak out about the things you care about, in the way you think would be intelligent. Isn't that your responsibility, not hers? She has picked her battles, the ones that matter to her, and as the saying almost goes; no one can fight every battle but everyone can fight one or two, possibly three. (Four shall not be the number, and five is right out. This has of course been known ever sinece the Holy Hand Grenade Crusade of Antioch)

To me it seems that what it boils down to is that she doesn't do what you want her to do, whatever that is, and she does not do it in the way you think she should do it. And since she doesn't, she can be dismissed as annoying and trendy. Also if you can speak out safely, you shouldn't, because others can’t. Got it.

And maybe climate change is "trendy", but in her opinion, and mine, it is also one of the most important issues all of us, but not least young people, face today, and I welcome all who try to do what they can to lessen the impact it will have.

I do not think you and I can reach an agreement, so I will happily let you have the last word, if you want it, and I will go on my merry way, quite pleased that there are young people who continue to try their best to bring about change in this world of ours, which is not exactly looking its best at the moment.

 

[theprestige]

So you disagree with her. Fine. You think she is privileged. So do I, so does she, and she could of course just keep her mouth shut and enjoy that privilege, and have a good time. Instead she speaks out about the things she cares about, trying to speak for those who are not as privileged as she is, and that is what you don't like? Apart from the fact that you think she should speak out about the things you care about, in the way you think would be intelligent. Isn't that your responsibility, not hers? She has picked her battles, the ones that matter to her, and as the saying almost goes; no one can fight every battle but everyone can fight one or two, possibly three. (Four shall not be the number, and five is right out. This has of course been known ever sinece the Holy Hand Grenade Crusade of Antioch)

To me it seems that what it boils down to is that she doesn't do what you want her to do, whatever that is, and she does not do it in the way you think she should do it. And since she doesn't, she can be dismissed as annoying and trendy. Also if you can speak out safely, you shouldn't, because others can’t. Got it.

And maybe climate change is "trendy", but in her opinion, and mine, it is also one of the most important issues all of us, but not least young people, face today, and I welcome all who try to do what they can to lessen the impact it will have.

I do not think you and I can reach an agreement, so I will happily let you have the last word, if you want it, and I will go on my merry way, quite pleased that there are young people who continue to try their best to bring about change in this world of ours, which is not exactly looking its best at the moment.

To me what it boils down to is not so much her speaking out (though I do think it's ineffectual). It's her fan club celebrating her speaking out as if it actually accomplishes anything. That celebration, that cargo-cult activism, is what I dislike.

For example, she's spoken out against the ecological damage arising from the war in Ukraine. But this isn't helpful, mainly because it isn't what Ukraine needs most right now. And what has she actually done about it? As far as I can tell, the most concrete thing she has done is be in the room while a "working group" to address the damage was formed.

So I have several questions about her contribution to the formation of that working group, and to its work. Did she pick the group members, or recommend them? Did she guide the group's formation in any way? Is she experienced in raising funds for this kind of effort - or any kind of effort? I don't mean as a poster child for a cause. I mean actually coordinating with donors and managing the intake of their funds. Does she have any experience supplying, equipping, or managing a major ecological recovery effort? Does she have any experience managing personnel, or the finances of a non-profit NGO? Does she have any experience with permitting and regulatory compliance for this kind of effort? Does she actually have anything of practical value to contribute to this working group or its work? Or is she just a bit of flair for the group to put on its homepage?

Because that seems to be her biggest contribution to any cause, lately: As a bit of flair for their website, or their sailboat trip, or their protest festival.

She's spoken up about the situation in Gaza, but what has she actually done? Brokered any ceasefires? Brought Hamas to the negotiating table in good faith? How much aid has she actually sourced for Gaza? How much time and effort has she invested in working with the Israeli government to improve the aid delivery and distribution situation? How much time and effort has she invested in working with Palestinian leaders, to improve the aid situation? For all her talk, the closest she's ever been to Palestinian aid is riding with a symbolic pittance on a literal showboat, that was never intended to reach Gaza anyway.

Speaking out is fine. Putting on a performative spectacle of cargo-cult activism is not. Celebrating cargo-cult activism as if it's the real thing is also not.

 

[Helen]

So you say. I think you are wrong; grassroot movements and activism have an impact on public opinion (sometimes overwhelmingly so, sometimes less easily detectable), and politicians are always aware of what their prospective voters want from them, and are also themselves influenced by public opinions. Would working within the political framework be more effective? I hope so, but democracy is a slow-moving beast (and so it should be), and belonging to a political party is not for everyone. Some of today's young activists will become politicians, possibly shedding some of their idealism and a few illusions when they do (sadly, but inevitably), but they will continue to influence how we see the world. And I will continue to feel hopeful about their future when I hear their voices, even though they are wrong about how much the world will change throughtheir actions. Imperceptibly perhaps, if you look straight at them here and now, but less so when you do the summing up further up ahead.

 

[3point14]

Google's AI summary indicates her primary - perhaps exclusive - focus has been on the ecological damage the war has caused. She condemns Russia for destroying the Kakhova dam, due to the ecological harm that resulted. Which, all well and good, and certainly 'ecocide' is well within her wheelhouse, but it's not really a forceful speaking out about the people of Ukraine and what they need to survive and win - or even that they should win.

And that's relatively old news. What has she done for Ukraine lately? Nothing. Which is probably fine; everything she does is performative and useless anyway.

You think she should be throwing soup at works of art, maybe?

 

[theprestige]

So you say. I think you are wrong; grassroot movements and activism have an impact on public opinion (sometimes overwhelmingly so, sometimes less easily detectable), and politicians are always aware of what their prospective voters want from them, and are also themselves influenced by public opinions. Would working within the political framework be more effective? I hope so, but democracy is a slow-moving beast (and so it should be), and belonging to a political party is not for everyone. Some of today's young activists will become politicians, possibly shedding some of their idealism and a few illusions when they do (sadly, but inevitably), but they will continue to influence how we see the world. And I will continue to feel hopeful about their future when I hear their voices, even though they are wrong about how much the world will change throughtheir actions. Imperceptibly perhaps, if you look straight at them here and now, but less so when you do the summing up further up ahead.

See, it's exactly this religious fervor that bugs me. What has Greta actually accomplished? Nothing you can think of, but you still have faith - "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".

You say Greta may not have accomplish much, but maybe someone will be inspired to accomplish great things, by her speeches. I say, why isn't Greta one of the ones inspired to do great things?

What you call "working within the political framework" I call, "working with people who can actually get things done, to actually get things done".

We can also look at her original claim to fame: Pleading with world leaders to save her childhood from imminent climate disaster, by making immediate and drastic reductions to industrial emissions. The leaders paid lip service to her pleadings, and did absolutely nothing she was pleading for. The necessary reductions were not made. Fortunately, her childhood turned out just fine, since the IPCC projections she was speaking from turned out to be way off.

And for this epic failure, she's accounted a big damn hero and the perfect poster child for any cause.

 

[3point14]

(1) They have right to do what they want (within law). But I have right to be annoyed by the choice of their topics. This is because I find it stupid and not really a priority.

(2) I also think that their activities aim at destabilizing the “Western” society. In the modern bipolar world, this ultimately benefits all sorts of cannibalist regimes, including Putin’s Russia, China, Iran etc. I wonder what you and Greta are going to say when Russia attacks Sweden ...

(3) I said "mass support". Have you seen any mass protest rallies in support of Ukraine organized by Greta and company? Or a humanitarian aid mission to the Ukrianian territoiries torn by war organized by her? Or any statements by climate acrivists regarding the enviromental desaster in Zaporizhzhia? If they exist, they are certainly very marginal.

You do understand how utterly ludicrous your argument is, right?

You seem to be contending that a protest for one issue is obviated if one does not protest all issues? That is an utterly ridiculous argument? Surely you can see that?

 

[3point14]

To me what it boils down to is not so much her speaking out (though I do think it's ineffectual). It's her fan club celebrating her speaking out as if it actually accomplishes anything. That celebration, that cargo-cult activism, is what I dislike.

How does one accomplish things?

What would she be doing regarding the issues she raises that would meet your approval?

 

[theprestige]

You think she should be throwing soup at works of art, maybe?

I think she should learn a trade or master a body of knowledge, get a good-paying job, and donate her surplus funds to the causes of her choice. Even better if she learns some aspect of managing an NGO, fundraising, practical lobbying, or environmental engineering. Also fine if she goes into politics, and contributes directly to the process of policy change. Also fine if she chooses an academic path, gets a doctorate in some relevant field, and through her research contributes new things to our understanding of climate and ecology.

 

[3point14]

I think she should learn a trade or master a body of knowledge, get a good-paying job, and donate her surplus funds to the causes of her choice. Even better if she learns some aspect of managing an NGO, fundraising, practical lobbying, or environmental engineering. Also fine if she goes into politics, and contributes directly to the process of policy change. Also fine if she chooses an academic path, gets a doctorate in some relevant field, and through her research contributes new things to our understanding of climate and ecology.

You're saying that she (and by extention, everyone else) shouldn't protest anything and that people should just get a job.

The alternative being to become politically active through conventional means. How are those methods of limiting climate change working out, do you think?


Do you think Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi should have just got a job? Maybe Emmeline Pankhurst should have learned a trade?

Your contention is ridiculous.

 

[Helen]

Religious fervour? Because I enjoy the idealism of young people? I am so sorry, theprestige, I promise to start a grassroot movement to make them get off your lawn immediately.