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

AtomicHorror

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No I don't. All are of an irrelevance. Attack their politics not how they are or what they look like.

One set of traits are a choice, the other are not.

The history of a politician or activists choices are always relevant.

jackboy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No.

Unless it’s someone you don’t like that’s fat, then it’s fair game.

p1akuw47h5r3it

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One set of traits are a choice, the other are not.

The history of a politician or activists choices are always relevant.

Greta can always choose to identify as male

Joking aside, dismissing someone politics because they are fat or have silly hair is absurd. Slagging them with intent to hurt is worse. Doing the former is literally the definition of ad-hominem.
Suggesting that a politicians choice to eat certain foods is somehow relevant to really anything is bordering on the ludicrous. Do you ask a canvessing politician what they had for dinner?

You know fully well that if a female politician received the abuse that Trump (in particular) or BJ there would be an outcry. And rightly so.

gozunda

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, you see no distinction between criticizing Greta on the basis of her age, gender and neurology and criticizing Trump on the basis of his spray tan, complex comb-over and excess body fat?
Something to do with choice, perhaps?

Not said. I said "No ones "traits and personality" have a bearing on the validity of their "message". So best read what was written again.

It also doesn't need to be said that trump has no more of a choice being a white male of a certain age than greta has of being a white female of certain age.

That some would try to validate such criticisms says more about the craziness of this whole thing than anything else.

AtomicHorror

gozunda wrote: »

Not said. I said "No ones "traits and personality" have a bearing on the validity of their "message". So best read what was written again.

It also doesn't need to be said that trump has no more of a choice being a white male of a certain age than greta has of being a white female of certain age.

That some would try to validate such criticisms says more about the craziness of this whole thing than anything else.

I'm not criticizing Trump for being a white male.

jackboy wrote: »

Unless it’s someone you don’t like that’s fat, then it’s fair game.

Also, no.

Third time lucky? Something to do with choice and underlying causes? Agency?

AtomicHorror

DanDan6592 wrote: »

You know fully well that if a female politician received the abuse that Trump (in particular) or BJ there would be an outcry. And rightly so.

On that, we might actually agree.

gozunda

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not criticizing Trump for being a white male.
Also, no.Third time lucky? Something to do with choice and underlying causes? Agency?

You're attempting to validate criticising trump because of his appearance - that you think he is fat or orange is irrelevant. That you chose those particular traits as being somehow important shows your argument as little more than deranged. Someone people seem hung up on gretas plaits - that's a choice. So maybe as you suggest we should get hung up on her hairstyle no?

It remains someones personal appearance (whether you chose to like it or otherwise) remains as irrelevant as gender.

But hey keep banging your head on that rock - you sure are making a real impact...

jackboy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Third time lucky? Something to do with choice and underlying causes? Agency?

Well you haven’t been exactly clear on when it is acceptable to mock fat people, we just know that trump is on the list.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Thank you for proving the point made in my previous post - in the very first paragraph. Well done

Your post is absent any point. You seem to be trying to dissuade me from using certain words - despite you regularly screeching 'Communism!' in the thread, when it doesn't even apply.

lleti

Neil Delaney wrote: »

While Greta can be annoying, I certainly agree with her 'burn the coal, pay the toll' message.

And if you're a family on the poverty line with only a stove?

Hococop

Problem here is she will be watched like a hawk now to see if she messes up, eg going on a plane or trains etc and people will point out the hypocrisy,

Same thing that pissed people off about dicaprio, he would talk about climate control and then be spotted later out on huge private luxury yachts jets etc

joe40

I wonder is it possible that we are going to be one of the last few generations to enjoy the technological advances of the 20th century.
Whether that be cars, air travel, electricity, computers they are all powered by energy from fossil fuels.
We know that is not sustainable. Some may still go on about climate change hoax but they're not worth arguing with at this stage. The consensus among the scientific community is too great.
Human nature will ensure that nowhere near enough people will voluntarily give up all the benefits of modern technology, to significantly reduce emissions. That's not necessarily a criticism just a fact.
So it seems to me the only solution will be technological.
Replacement energy resources that will at least match fossil fuels.
Individual action although laudable and necessary will not solve the problem.
It is the equivalent of band aid for famine relief. Some short term help but does nothing to solve underlying issues.
I wish Greta all the best she is to be applauded for her efforts and the awareness she is raising, but it is also hard not to despair at this.

I'm nearly 50 so personally won't be affected but horrible to think that this might be as good as it gets for human technological advancement and society.
We need scientific and technological solutions and the political will to make it happen. Might not be possible we can only hope.

lleti

Hococop wrote: »

Problem here is she will be watched like a hawk now to see if she messes up, eg going on a plane or trains etc and people will point out the hypocrisy,

Same thing that pissed people off about dicaprio, he would talk about climate control and then be spotted later out on huge private luxury yachts jets etc

Hardly a problem is it?

Can't go around telling people they're to blame and then go and exasperate the problem.

There's literally no reason for her to go on a plane or train, she can walk to school.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Your post is absent any point. You seem to be trying to dissuade me from using certain words - despite you regularly screeching 'Communism!' in the thread, when it doesn't even apply.

On but that is correct. It did indeed apply and I'm not the only one to say that. Many others say the same. But if you insist you are wrong ...

Professor Moriarty

If only Greta can be discredited then climate change will cease to exist and everyone can get back to their happy clappy lives.

Mebuntu

Jeremy Clarkson addressed Greta today. I love it.

‘How dare you sail to America on a carbon fibre yacht that you didn’t build which cost £15million, that you didn’t earn, and which has a back-up diesel engine that you didn’t mention.'
'We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all,‘So how dare you stand there and lecture us, you spoilt brat.’

gozunda

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If only Greta can be discredited then climate change will cease to exist and everyone can get back to their happy clappy lives.

Yet another fallacy? In the big scheme of things - greta means fek all - climate change or no. It's like suggesting you can only celebrate Christmas if you believe in santa claus
..

Thelonious Monk

Yeah I should have known Jez Clarkson would be the type of bloke you people would listen to. Excellent to see that she has "triggered" another one of your own, middle aged white dude

Professor Moriarty

gozunda wrote: »

Yet another fallacy? In the big scheme of things - greta means fek all - climate change or no. It's like suggesting you can only celebrate Christmas if you believe in santa claus
..

It's a logical fallacy in which many people seem to believe.

joe40

Mebuntu wrote: »

Jeremy Clarkson addressed Greta today. I love it.
‘How dare you sail to America on a carbon fibre yacht that you didn’t build which cost £15million, that you didn’t earn, and which has a back-up diesel engine that you didn’t mention.'
'We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all,‘So how dare you stand there and lecture us, you spoilt brat.’

Jeremy Clarkson contributed nothing to modern technology so how can he say what "we gave you..."
He is just an arse who used his influence when, he had any, to deny climate change at every opportunity.

Thelonious Monk

It's funny how they say "we gave you internet laptops" etc and then at the same time call them spoiled brats for giving them all this stuff like it's their fault

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah I should have known Jez Clarkson would be the type of bloke you people would listen to. Excellent to see that she has "triggered" another one of your own, middle aged white dude

Are you a 'white dude'? Interesting to know what you have against at least 49% of the population here. A bit racist no?

Professor Moriarty

Mebuntu wrote: »

Jeremy Clarkson addressed Greta today. I love it.
‘How dare you sail to America on a carbon fibre yacht that you didn’t build which cost £15million, that you didn’t earn, and which has a back-up diesel engine that you didn’t mention.'
'We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all,‘So how dare you stand there and lecture us, you spoilt brat.’

It's The Sun so Jeremy has to feed the fish. He's been afraid of the message for many years so he's shooting the messenger. Jeremy doesn't want to know the reality so he mocks it at every turn and useful idiots laugh and clap.

hetuzozaho

Mebuntu wrote: »

Jeremy Clarkson addressed Greta today. I love it.
‘How dare you sail to America on a carbon fibre yacht that you didn’t build which cost £15million, that you didn’t earn, and which has a back-up diesel engine that you didn’t mention.'
'We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all,‘So how dare you stand there and lecture us, you spoilt brat.’

He sounds so angry...he might punch her

ancapailldorcha

Mebuntu wrote: »

Jeremy Clarkson addressed Greta today. I love it.
‘How dare you sail to America on a carbon fibre yacht that you didn’t build which cost £15million, that you didn’t earn, and which has a back-up diesel engine that you didn’t mention.'
'We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all,‘So how dare you stand there and lecture us, you spoilt brat.’

Clarkson doesn't give anything but negativity, abuse and stupidity. He's the embodiment of privilege which feels threatened by a young woman with opinions. It's disgraceful but par for the course.

gozunda

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Clarkson doesn't give anything but negativity, abuse and stupidity. He's the embodiment of privilege ..

It would seem that jeremy and greta have more in common than any of us would think

ancapailldorcha

gozunda wrote: »

It would seem that jeremy and greta have more in common than any of us would think

Completely false equivalence. Clarkson stokes rage on behalf of his tax dodging employer for personal gain. I see no reason to suspect the same disingenuity on the part of Thunberg.

jackboy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Completely false equivalence. Clarkson stokes rage on behalf of his tax dodging employer for personal gain. I see no reason to suspect the same disingenuity on the part of Thunberg.

I believe Greta is genuine but is being played like a fiddle by people who don’t give a damn about her.

The end result is similar to Clarkson. Abusing strangers and intense negativity.

SafeSurfer

joe40 wrote: »

Mebuntu wrote: »

Jeremy Clarkson addressed Greta today. I love it.
‘How dare you sail to America on a carbon fibre yacht that you didn’t build which cost £15million, that you didn’t earn, and which has a back-up diesel engine that you didn’t mention.'
'We gave you mobile phones and laptops and the internet. We created the social media you use every day and we run the banks that pay for it all,‘So how dare you stand there and lecture us, you spoilt brat.’

Jeremy Clarkson contributed nothing to modern technology so how can he say what "we gave you..."
He is just an arse who used his influence when, he had any, to deny climate change at every opportunity.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

gozunda wrote: »

It would seem that jeremy and greta have more in common than any of us would think

Completely false equivalence. Clarkson stokes rage on behalf of his tax dodging employer for personal gain. I see no reason to suspect the same disingenuity on the part of Thunberg.

Both stoke rage for personal gain. The difference is one does it with humour the other without.

ancapailldorcha

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Both stoke rage for personal gain. The difference is one does it with humour the other without.

Thunberg is stoking rage for personal gain? Can you prove that?