To be clear, I'm not insulted by either the presence or the removal of the octopus. I think Thunberg acted with integrity and consideration in her apology and subsequent reframing of the photograph and many older and supposedly wiser people could learn from her handling of the situation.
Agree that many people can learn from that situation but at the same time it's opening an can of worms, because anything can be see as offensive to anyone that the main point i wanted to make.
I also don't consider her activism to be performative outrage.
Agree to disagree, don't want to change this topic too much.
Again, who was actually offended by the presence of her disability aid?
i don't think it does really matter she apologized for it and despite you can praise it it also opens a can of worms for other to demand justified or not justified apologies. I mean we can talk a other 20 pages about why an octopus can be insulting but i think the main thing is more, these days we don't accept anything anymore, and on some fronts like abusive men towards random women that is good but in cases like this, i don't think of it as a real plus do you?
We used to be able to say it might offend me/neighbour x/etc. in this and this setting, but i don't think it's intended that way so i'm not offended.
The problem is her concern seems to be rather selective. Wanting justice for all in the face of Hamas atrocities is weak to say the least. The YT clip posted by
@dutchguylivingintheuk was ironic to say the least.
that was exactly what i wanted to point out with it, it indeed ironic how easily they could make it so fitting.
The actions of anyone that knowingly will long term lead to the harm of others would indeed be evil. Greta would not have been wrong imo to use that expression.
yes but it's also very generic, the bible, koran etc. all say that at least one team in slightly different wording but the principle is not so different
It took some guts to get up in front of the UN to give her speech at her age. On the other hand 'you have stolen my dreams and childhood' seems to make the issue revolve around her. She had to add 'I am one of the lucky ones' to deflect to my mind the legitimate criticism from someone in the developing world that living in Sweden she is not so much lucky as privileged. It's true that she wasn't forced to make the speech but to have been filled with so much fear seems to me to be bordering on child abuse. That was my reaction at the time.
Agreed more so if you go down XR's claims and you can only come to the conclusion they took IPCC's report put an few zero's every every number and then go scream how terrible and dangerous it all is. However if you make things much worse than they actually are you are a active participant in misinformation a thing they claim(rightly so) the oil industry has being doing for years. But how can you criticize the one of you join the same tactics? something doesn't really add up.
Some brief footage of her at Glasgow showed the adulation has gone to her head. Probably not that surprising.
Yes, indeed not surprising she is hailed like a popstar.
From the point of view of climate alarmism she was a propaganda coup, and wrong-footed many a sceptic. This was shown in their failure to deal with her, frequent ad hominum attacks, and on the comment sections of some sceptic sites appallingly viscious nasty comments. I found tbh some of it disgusting. They should have left her alone, seen she was a propaganda ploy, and dealt with the issues, but you are right she did touch a raw nerve.
I agree the sexism, demeaning, etc. kind of comments are not wanted, all in all she is just used by her parents as a tool to push a certain agenda. Well prepared may i add.
But she also came in the right moment with the right presentation, if you look at for example Al Gore a what was is 10-15 years prior his message basicly was the same, not even 10% of his doom predictions have come true, but people where much less impressed with him.
I do think it is of concern that she is gaining power and influence without responsibility. It's easy to say don't carry on with business as usual, but how do you actually do that without wrecking the world economy.
''Wrecking the world economy isn't really happening what we now see is ''green washing'' in expect in about 10 years time they come the the conclussion that batteries are the devil to so then we all have to swap to something else like fuel cell. Who are the ones idealitically from their deepest desire to be green funding all this? and who are the ones profiting from it? Both the oil companies and the car manufacturers. it seems even when they lose they win.