nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dohnjoe

seamus wrote: »

But it is a rather curious feature of the criticism.

Even on this thread it's the usual middle-aged male underachievers who make up the vast majority of those lining up to take a pop at a campaigner. And it's the same culprits every time the story is about a woman.

What's that about?

Yup I've noticed this. The same handful. Climate change denial whataboutery to the side, these people seem to feel threatened by the actions of a young girl. The alt right in the US also seem to have taken the same tack

Birds of a feather and all that.

Jimmy Garlic

seamus wrote: »

But it is a rather curious feature of the criticism.

Even on this thread it's the usual middle-aged male underachievers who make up the vast majority of those lining up to take a pop at a campaigner. And it's the same culprits every time the story is about a woman.

What's that about?

Maybe it's about you feeling smug and right-on about yourself. Greta Thunburgs gender is irrelevant, it's only a handful of people such as yourself who feel compelled to drag that subject into this debate, and every other debate where a female happens to be involved, and then proceed to dish out simplistic stereotypes and baseless knee-jerk accusations of sexism.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

But it is a rather curious feature of the criticism.

Even on this thread it's the usual middle-aged male underachievers who make up the vast majority of those lining up to take a pop at a campaigner. And it's the same culprits every time the story is about a woman.

What's that about?

It’s not a feature of the criticism, that’s the point.

Any more than “a feature” of the criticism aren’t a majority of middle-aged male underachievers, or white or any of the rest of it any time the story is about a woman.

I wouldn’t even call it selection bias because anyone who was critical of the whole fiasco it was implied by some people that they might be a paedophile. I don’t notice a particular trend among people castigating other people as paedophiles simply because I don’t parse my perception through the lens of identity politics.

It says something about the defenders of this fiasco though that they characterise anyone who is critical of the idea must be a paedophile, middle aged loser, etc, while the people punting a child around the globe in a boat are set to make a fortune from it in political and monetary gain.

As I said earlier - bears all the hallmarks of a cult.

Dohnjoe

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

MGreta Thunburgs gender is irrelevant

You a spokesperson for the internet? I've seen horrible **** written about this girl online, the boards shower is just more subtle about it. This is a kid, it's a symbolic trip. My nieces and nephews are all (rightly) concerned about the planet and they want to do something about it, which I think is fantastic, and she's a good role-model. People finding a way to **** on that is extraordinary.

gozunda

Calhoun wrote: »

It's easier for the more extreme climate folk to just put it that the stupid in the masses won't accept anything. Rather than having a more mature conversation and bringing realistic options to the table.

I remember during the local elections one fool saying that if you didn't vote for the green party you were against climate change action.

I believe George Orwell pretty much covered it with the concepts of 'thoughtcrime, crimethink, and wrongthink' which he used to describe the intellectual actions and opinions of anyone who entertains and holds any thoughts which are deemed as somehow unacceptable to others.

In this case a striking feature of the whole debacle is that any criticism of either the message or those pushing the message is signposted as coming exclusively from male middle class climate change denier paedophiles whose only wish desire is to shut down the voice of reason...

I'm not too which is the greatest issue here - that a child is being promoted as a savant and a saviour or that any criticism of same is held up as deviant.

We live in interesting times ...

CrankyHaus

seamus wrote: »

But it is a rather curious feature of the criticism.

Even on this thread it's the usual middle-aged male underachievers who make up the vast majority of those lining up to take a pop at a campaigner. And it's the same culprits every time the story is about a woman.

What's that about?

Or to put it another way : Rather than argue the issues you choose to mount bizarre and unfounded ad hominem attacks.

I think a big problem here is people seeing this argument as one of sides rather than issues. As if this is just another skirmish in the online Battle Royale between the enlightened progressives and, to use just some of the vitriol thrown around on this thread, "the usual middle-aged male underachievers" who are also paedophiles and misogynists and would be fascists if they lived in the 30s.

The problem with this is that by seeing it in such us-vs-them and good-vs-evil terms you close your mind to discussion and just resort to slinging mud, which is what the majority of this thread has been (incidentally this dynamic is a feature of actual real world Fascism).

In fairness this has not been entirely one way on this thread and the division on the thread has been largely, but by no means exclusively, between well established Boards cliques. But is this a discussion site or an echo chamber? Do you want to discuss ideas or score cheap brownie points off your buddies?

Dohnjoe

It's a bunch of triggered bitter internet types wallowing in complaining about a kid raising awareness for the environment

I don't hear this down the pub, talking to friends, talking to colleagues - the only place I come across these pedantic, petty views is online, places like this, consistently, regardless of subject

CrankyHaus

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a bunch of triggered bitter internet types wallowing in complaining about a kid raising awareness for the environment

I don't hear this down the pub, talking to friends, talking to colleagues - the only place I come across these pedantic, petty views is online, places like this, consistently, regardless of subject

Right on cue you came in and answered my question - you don't want a discussion, you want an echo chamber where you score cheap brownie points off the rest of your clique.

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a bunch of triggered bitter internet types wallowing in complaining about a kid raising awareness for the environment

I don't hear this down the pub, talking to friends, talking to colleagues - the only place I come across these pedantic, petty views is online, places like this, consistently, regardless of subject

It's your comment comes which across as somewhat bitter and triggered tbh. Maybe spend more time in the pub on not on the internet if you believe it so?

jimgoose

It seems to me that the poor child has developed a fixation on the climate change conundrum, as children on the autistic spectrum do, and subsequently the Great and Good "Voice of Reason" crowd have fixated on her. I find the whole thing a little odd, but at any rate she's not doing any harm. Unless they get into bother in the middle of the ocean in that stupid thing, and a shit-load of diesel and/or kerosene has to be burned getting them out of it. :pac:

Dohnjoe

jimgoose wrote: »

It seems to me that the poor child has developed a fixation on the climate change conundrum, as children on the autistic spectrum do, and subsequently the Great and Good "Voice of Reason" crowd have fixated on her. I find the whole thing a little odd, but at any rate she's not doing any harm. Unless they get into bother in the middle of the ocean in that stupid thing, and a shit-load of diesel and/or kerosene has to be burned getting them out of it. :pac:

Wow

jimgoose

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow

Did you not know that autistic kids develop fixations?

RandomName2

jackboy wrote: »

There is no doubt that climate change is real. I have never heard any sane person say that climate change is not real. The debate is on the part of climate change that can be attributed to human activities. A lot of research has been done but there are still large gaps in our knowledge and understanding.

Also, there are not thousands upon thousands of scientists researching man made climate change in a significant way. This belief may be mainstream but it is not true.

Isn't it a bit irrelevant whether the change is coming from humans or not? If the Earth is heating up (and there is ample evidence to indicate that this is the trend) and if we want to alter this, then the only thing we can affect is human activity.

Ultimately the Earth is going to end in fire. That is inevitable. But prior to that it would be wise to take action to prevent ocean acidification in order to avoid extinction level events, if at all possible.

Dohnjoe

jimgoose wrote: »

Did you not know that autistic kids develop fixations?

Keep going..

jimgoose

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Keep going..

No, I'm all done here. :cool:

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wow

Fairly well known tbh - detailed description here.
Her parents have also acknowledged it as part of her condition.

https://www.yourlittleprofessor.com/managing-the-fixations-of-children-with-aspergers-syndrome/

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Fairly well know tbh - detailed description here.
Her parents have also acknowledged it as part of her condition.

https://www.yourlittleprofessor.com/managing-the-fixations-of-children-with-aspergers-syndrome/

What would you say bothers you the most about this child..

And, out of curiousity, are you on the fence about man-made climate change?

weldoninhio

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would you say bothers you the most about this child..

And, out of curiousity, are you on the fence about man-made climate change?

Want a hand moving those goalposts?? :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would you say bothers you the most about this child..

And, out of curiousity, are you on the fence about man-made climate change?

”Have you stopped beating your wife?” :pac:

It’s person-made climate change btw, wouldn’t want to be sexist now would we?

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would you say bothers you the most about this childAnd, out of curiousity, are you on the fence about man-made climate change?

Peculiar that you would attempt a 'wow' answer to something which even Greta herself has acknowledged. Why was that?

“I overthink. Some people can just let things go, but I can’t, especially if there’s something that worries me or makes me sad,"

from an Interview with Greta with The Guardian.

Strange you would act surprised / indignant at information that is readily available and detailed by Greta herself?

Why do you believe that anyone is 'bothered' (sic) by a child? I believe the majority of posters are discussing a figurehead who cant be criticised apparently.

You may also have surmised the thread is not about climate change believers, fence sitters (sic) or deniers or indeed any particular poster. If not read the thread to see what the discussion is about if you are in any doubt about this.

Tbh it would be interesting to hear your views on the issue at hand tbh as opposed to virtual foot stomping being demonstrated ...

Tell me how

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would you say bothers you the most about this child..

And, out of curiousity, are you on the fence about man-made climate change?

weldoninhio wrote: »

Want a hand moving those goalposts?? :rolleyes:

It's a relevant question.

The child is being brought up and faux concern for her well being or responsibility for her concern being attributed to her autism being used to deflect from the message she is communicating.

It's unsuprising and nauseating all at once.

jackboy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Isn't it a bit irrelevant whether the change is coming from humans or not? If the Earth is heating up (and there is ample evidence to indicate that this is the trend) and if we want to alter this, then the only thing we can affect is human activity.

It is highly relevant. If current climate change is significantly being caused by humans then we need to change our ways to reduce our impact.

If climate change is not significantly being caused by humans than actions taken to reduce our impact will not work and the climate may continue to get worse. In this situation we need to accept climate change and adapt our lifesyles to the new conditions (restrict where people live, change the type of houses we buid, alter the crops grown in certain regions etc).

MarquisDeSad

Tell me how wrote: »

It's a relevant question.

The child is being brought up and faux concern for her well being or responsibility for her concern being attributed to her autism being used to deflect from the message she is communicating.

It's unsuprising and nauseating all at once.

You've hit the nail on the head there.

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

It's a relevant question.

The child is being brought up and faux concern for her well being or responsibility for her concern being attributed to her autism being used to deflect from the message she is communicating.

It's unsuprising and nauseating all at once.

Is it any more unsurprising and nauseating that adults are using a child to promote their political and social beliefs because they know their target audience?

There are numerous reasons why this particular child was chosen above all of all the children who care about social, political and environmental issues - because the public image they want to portray of this child plays well with the audience the adults are trying to appeal to.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it any more unsurprising and nauseating that adults are using a child to promote their political and social beliefs because they know their target audience?

There are numerous reasons why this particular child was chosen above all of all the children who care about social, political and environmental issues - because the public image they want to portray of this child plays well with the audience the adults are trying to appeal to.

The adults are not using the child.

She started the protest and it grew in popularity, this brought her to the attention of like minded people who engaged with her to help her bring her message to more significant groups and to a wider number of people.
It would only be using her if it was against her wishes or she had been asked to change her message. Neither is the case. She spoke before departing for the ?US that this whole experience has made her happy because initially she thought that no one (including her siblings and parents) cared about the climate issue but now that she has met so many people who do, she does not feel so alone.

The persistence of detractors in ignoring what she has said or her message is because of either A, a wish to keep their head in the sand or B, a consistent natural inclination to want to denigrate anything or anyone who they disagree with or simply don't understand.

Voicing concern while doing this just enforces the feeling that it is more B than A motivating many here.

Kid Charlemagne

jackboy wrote: »

It is highly relevant. If current climate change is significantly being caused by humans then we need to change our ways to reduce our impact.

If climate change is not significantly being caused by humans than actions taken to reduce our impact will not work and the climate may continue to get worse. In this situation we need to accept climate change and adapt our lifesyles to the new conditions (restrict where people live, change the type of houses we buid, alter the crops grown in certain regions etc).

Is this still up for discussion for some people!?!?

:rolleyes: :pac::pac::pac:

gozunda

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head there.

With that well thumped nail unfortunately being in a completely different discussion :pac:

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Peculiar that you would attempt a 'wow' answer to something which even Greta herself has acknowledged. Why was that?

Strange you would act surprised / indignant at information that is readily available and detailed by Greta herself?

Why do you believe that anyone is 'bothered' (sic) by a child? I believe the majority of posters are discussing a figurehead that is being promoted.

It's mentioned on the first page of the thread. It's a thinly veiled excuse to rehash a dismissal her views (and the topic as a whole)

You may also have surmised the thread is not about climate change believers or deniers or indeed any particular poster. If not read the thread to see what the discussion is about if you are in any doubt about this.

Tbh it would be interesting to hear your views on the issue at hand tbh as opposed to virtual foot stamping being demonstrated ...

If she wants to cross a desert/ocean/go into space - she can. And if someone wants to fund her, they can. What odds, at the end of the day it's for a good cause, to highlight man-made climate change and environmentalism

Kid Charlemagne

seamus wrote: »

But it is a rather curious feature of the criticism.

Even on this thread it's the usual middle-aged male underachievers who make up the vast majority of those lining up to take a pop at a campaigner. And it's the same culprits every time the story is about a woman.

What's that about?

Correct. Embarrassing for me as a middle aged man to be associated with these life long loser nobodies who can only validate their own existences by denigrating others. Hate anyone who displays any positivity, just want to sit around wallowing in failure and feel shown up by anyone else who doesn't want to do the same.

Kid Charlemagne

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Maybe it's about you feeling smug and right-on about yourself. Greta Thunburgs gender is irrelevant, it's only a handful of people such as yourself who feel compelled to drag that subject into this debate, and every other debate where a female happens to be involved, and then proceed to dish out simplistic stereotypes and baseless knee-jerk accusations of sexism.

You're agenda is pretty clear "Jimmy"

:pac::pac::pac: