at the end of the day, the only way politicians will make meaningful changes is if the majority of people want them to change
she's done her small part in changing that
she moved the needle
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
at the end of the day, the only way politicians will make meaningful changes is if the majority of people want them to change
she's done her small part in changing that
she moved the needle
I guess it stems from the idea that leaders and visionaries should be excellent at their craft. But sometimes timing, determination or simply the ability to inspire people is all it takes. It's a tough pill to swallow for people who subscribe to the Just World Fallacy.
Ok, maybe Greta isn't a genius. Maybe she hasn't figured out all the solutions on her own. Maybe she isn't the best public speaker. So what? She still took a big and important step and she hasn't backed down since. It doesn't matter if she's just a figure head at this stage. As long as she inspires people all over the world and keeps putting pressure on world leaders, she's doing a brilliant job.
Rosa Parks was probably not the first African American to refuse to give up her seat to a white person. Does that make her less important?
She didn't start anything. She just attached her face to a movement that was already ongoing, but at a point when it was reaching fever pitch.
It's the science that's driving the timelines, not her.
Greta's the swedish Bob Geldof and she's moved jack-shit. COP26 has been running for 26 years and sea levels have been rising for decades as well. Tuvalu would still be getting in the news with or without her.
It's the imminence of the climate catastrophe that's startled governments into action. Her involvement is correlation not causation.
Like the Queen? In the sense that she fosters a sense of unity within society that helps to get people pulling in the same direction.
But at the same time, she's also personally profiting from her position in a way that's unfair to people who contribute more to the overall well-being of those she's meant to represent.
Yeah, I can get on board with that notion. Good point.
you seem a bit angry about this
anyway here is a study on the matter
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jasp.12737
This is like one of those Rorschach tests where the patient's interpretation of the image is actually a window into their own psychology.
I'm pretty sure I've seen you try to pull this 'you seem angry' trick on other posters who disagree with you. I assume this is either because you think it works, or because you view the world through the lens of your own anger.
My money's on he thinks she gets more credit than her actions merit (he would be correct) and the near universal praise in this thread has driven him to come in way stronger than is remotely justifiable.
I'd think you were angry if I wasn't familiar enough with you to know you enjoy being the one with the hot take.
As do I, to be fair.
This is more in line with Clarkson and all the other old men who cannot hide their insecurities about seeing a little girl having a voice and influence in the public sphere.
It's not like Greta is royalty or the daughter of a billionaire or some global celebrity. She's a random Swedish kid who cared about the environment for most of her childhood and one day decided to go on strike. She still had to take some form of action. And her passion is very much real.
Did she deserve the attention more than those who have worked tirelessly for decades? Probably not, but the world is not fair when it comes to these things. It's rarely the most qualified or virtuous people who get put in charge. But if the end results are good then it shouldn't matter. I really doubt most environmentalists are cursing Greta for stealing the spotlight.
The thing is that she is the "populist" figurehead. These populist movements have given us wankers like Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi, Erdoğan etc, etc, who move the populous in one direction, what the problem with one pushing the needle the other way?
True, what she did was actually more of a PR thing. Claudette Colvin is the "real" Rosa Parks.
It's up to you to decide to call it 'PR' or spreading awareness. She wasn't any celebrity or a public figure, even now is she going into a profession that is public, for her even having any need to have 'public relations'? And even so, pretty much any active movement requires people to be the face, so I'm not sure about the need to discourage that.
I didn't mean it in a negative way, what she did was amazing and she's obviously very brave for doing it. Calling it a PR thing was just the shortest way I could think of explaining it because it's obviously off topic and just a small add-on to what I replied to.
Edit: Not sure if you know that I'm talking about Rosa Parks, not Greta.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this. I'm hugely sympathetic to the cause, but there is just something off in the presentation. It was the "How dare you?" and "You have stolen my childhood" speech that made me think, it was also about the performance and not just the message.
But whether you are a huge fan or not, you have to admit that she is actually doing something and making real sacrifices to further her cause. This is more than 99% of people can say.
Meh, she's turning loads of people off the message with how she does it too, but that's just how the young kids like things done anyway so good for her.
"Let's burn the planet to the ground because this autistic kid was somewhat off when speaking to the UN or whoever"?
She’s done what some of the smartest scientists have tried to do for decades. Get people active about climate change.
Yep, it's important that there are popular figures across all age groups spreading the message. Some people will listen to scientists, some to Greta and some to David Attenborough. Some will listen to Greta and then read what the scientists are saying. She's doing a great job and being the figurehead for younger generations.
honestly I think a lot of people will say that they were turned off by the messaging, but if that’s the case they were probably never likely candidates in the first place.
Like when Kaepernick took the knee, there was a big backlash and a lot of vitriol was thrown away for the form of protest he chose. Then later when other more disruptive protests took place they also faced massive backlashes, with the same people opining for less disruptive protests. Hard to win.
I don’t think people have to like her, but if her being a little abrasive to those in power over their lack of progress in battling climate change turns loads of people away, then these people have weird priorities.
“How dare I?! Just for that I’m flying to the Bahamas, enjoy the apocalypse bitch!”
Issue is that she's turning off the very people that needs to be educated.
Young folks would probably resonate most with her but they're already mostly already educated about global warming in the first place with science drumming on about it for very long already.
What exactly is there to be turned off from the cause by what she is doing?
She is not the only activist and she is not in your face at all. The Insulate Britain group are counterproductive because they are disrupting people directly - many who will agree with the message but are powerless to make the impact needed compared to government and private enterprise. But Greta Thunberg is not hindering anybody except holding those in power accountable with her platform.
She is not the only activist and she is not in your face at all. The Insulate Britain group are counterproductive because they are disrupting people directly - many who will agree with the message but are powerless to make the impact needed compared to government and private enterprise. But Greta Thunberg is not hindering anybody except holding those in power accountable with her platform.
Yea but she’s a young lady who is making people feel bad, therefore she has to be in the wrong somehow.
I guess the many millions of teenagers around the world inspired by her would disagree. They like her, her personality, her assertiveness and her general attitude. I have students who've told me that.
And people shouldn't discount the celebrity status thing. In a school I've worked a group of teenage girls began a climate club because they were massive Leonardo DiCaprio fans. They're in college now and still engaged.
So when people say "well, they're only celebrities saying things, but not doing much", they're ignoring the impact that alone may have on teenagers, who're still trying to figure things how and are being confronted with certain issues for the first time, the influence from celebrities may just be the one things that pushes them in a certain direction.
So even if Greta had nothing to offer other then being a celebrity (and I disagree with that), that alone can be really useful and impactful.
So when people say "well, they're only celebrities saying things, but not doing much", they're ignoring the impact that alone may have on teenagers, who're still trying to figure things how and are being confronted with certain issues for the first time, the influence from celebrities may just be the one things that pushes them in a certain direction.
So even if Greta had nothing to offer other then being a celebrity (and I disagree with that), that alone can be really useful and impactful.
Wait, if the kids are the ones who are already educated on it, who are the people who “need to be educated”? They’re not taking some course in climate change that’s shut off from the rest of the world. Everyone’s educated. We got a head start over the kids and did too little, clearly.
The people who are turned off by her messaging are the ones who already know what’s wrong but don’t want to do anything about it that harms their day to day lives and don’t like being told that’s outrageously selfish and destructive to a society. The fact someone with so little maturity and knowledge can make that point, the fact that it’s so obvious now, is what turns them off.
100% this.
I think not everyone is convinced that the world is coming to an end if we don't meet targets and at the same time it's a near impossible task to get 7 billion people and various goverments dancing to the same tune. There is also the idea of adapting to climate change. Like if the sea levels are rising then build some damns and stuff like that. I'm not turned off by her, I just think its all massively complicated. Growth and CO2 emissions(and pillaging the earth's rescorces) go hand in hand. So yes the like most people I'd want some the countries with the most CO2 emissions pr. capita to transition as much as is realisticaly possible, but when you have growth in the developing countries as well such as India a lot of it frankly seems like a lost cause where adapting rather putting all bets on net zero seems like a more viable option. I live by the ocean in a flat country so it will be an egg on my face when i'm drowned by rising sea levels.
damn son
Humans maybe can adapt, but what about wildlife who can’t? We will also be looking at climate refugees in the future when certain parts of the word will become inhabitable, not easy to simply adapt.
Like the netherlands.
Wild life has been screwed ever since we've been able harness nature. Its just a really sorry state of affairs. Our lifestyle is a massive problem but so is overpopulation. I cant see the trend reversing anytime soon.
Cool, let’s do nothing then. Carry on.
the right should get their own version of Greta who goes around telling us to man up and build some dams
And the people she is turning off are the people who most need to change, and those with the wealth, power and means to do something about climate change if they wanted to. An army of students aren't going to change a thing no matter how loud they shout, not until they're older. Cop26 has well and truly proven that.
She's a very polarising character and the last thing the world needs is more people getting entrenched in their views.
Thats bjørn lomborg.
The trajectory of popular leaders/faces is very often archetypal and Greta fits the Cassandra (before) / Jeanne d’Arc (now) bill pretty well, with the entire, globalised media circus avidly milking every drop out of it.
Didnt say to be fair. Was making the point of the futility of expecting to get the whole world dancing to the same tune. The only thing poor countries care about is mainly being lifted out of poverty.
Overpopulation isn't a great argument. How many people could we fit on the planet sustainably if everyone had the lifestyle of the average American?