SafeSurfer wrote: » Both stoke rage for personal gain. The difference is one does it with humour the other without.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Both stoke rage for personal gain. The difference is one does it with humour the other without. Can you point out the humour in this please:‘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.’ Sounds like a triggered and humourless grumpy, rightwing old man to me.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » 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?
SafeSurfer wrote: » Her motivation is self interest and she is clear about this. She wants the world to act so she doesn’t feel afraid, so that she doesn’t have to panic. Also personal gain is not simply money. Would a 16 year old normally sail with minor European royalty in a multi million euro yacht? Or address parliaments or the UN? Do you believe that Greta Thunberg or her parents have not benefited in any way from her “angry eco activist celebrity”?
hetuzozaho wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Her motivation is self interest and she is clear about this. She wants the world to act so she doesn’t feel afraid, so that she doesn’t have to panic. Also personal gain is not simply money. Would a 16 year old normally sail with minor European royalty in a multi million euro yacht? Or address parliaments or the UN? Do you believe that Greta Thunberg or her parents have not benefited in any way from her “angry eco activist celebrity”? You can't honestly believe this?
SafeSurfer wrote: » Well I am only basing my opinion on what she has said.
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.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You are basing his stoking up rage and his humour on a single paragraph? Why the need to point out his age and his gender. You are no better than those who dismiss Thunberg as a young girl.
gozunda wrote: » Most likley both are products of their respective environments. For certain both seem to love the limelight....
hetuzozaho wrote: » You can't honestly believe this?
gozunda wrote: » Ok so let's get the the point of this thread - why bother sailing to the US, when it was shown that voyage will create more carbon with the flights of the crew, when she could dimly have Skyped her speech? Why the two weeks spent on a millionaires yacht with a bucket for a Khazi? It makes no sense whatsoever ...
hetuzozaho wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Well I am only basing my opinion on what she has said. So she said she started all this to have a go on a yacht? Link please.
Tell me how wrote: » What is it about Greta that makes you think she loves the limelight? She is focused on drawing as much attention as she can on her cause, that is very different to wanting the camera to be on her all the time. There is no evidence to suggest your position is accurate.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » A well known young woman sails across the ocean and then addresses the UN on climate change. Or she gives a Skype interview. Same publicity obviously.
Tell me how wrote: » SafeSurfer wrote: » Her motivation is self interest and she is clear about this. She wants the world to act so she doesn’t feel afraid, so that she doesn’t have to panic. Also personal gain is not simply money. Would a 16 year old normally sail with minor European royalty in a multi million euro yacht? Or address parliaments or the UN? Do you believe that Greta Thunberg or her parents have not benefited in any way from her “angry eco activist celebrity”? You could use your weak argument to to suggest every action anyone does is motivated by self interest. Person A - 'I want to be a good teacher to all my students' Person B - 'then you're only a teacher because of your self interests' What about all the awards which she has won and donated the entirety of any prize fund to climate defence initiatives.
hetuzozaho wrote: » Oh I didn't realise you didn't know what it was about: Google stuff like "raising awareness", "awareness campaigns" and "protests".It's interesting and used a lot for different things - and in this case has Millions marching for change of a Friday. Skype is great technology though - but not for awareness campaigns etc.
gozunda wrote: » Duh seriously! She is up in front of crowds and cameras at every opportunity. The two week stunt on the yatch with her own PR guy. Her newly published book etc etc. How much 'evidence' do you require? I rest my case your honour ...
gozunda wrote: » Raising awareness of what exactly?
gozunda wrote: » Duh seriously! She is up in front of crowds and cameras at every opportunity. The two week stunt on the yatch with her own PR guy. Her newly published book etc etc. How much 'evidence' do you require?
Tell me how wrote: » She stepped back at a protest in NY and said she would leave it to the organisers there to speak even though she was present.That PR guy was a cameraman which is quite different. The book is titled 'No one is too small to make a difference' Is that not indicative of someone trying to empower others. It's not like it was titled to be self-praising. Any real evidence of her trying to monetize this or gain personal recognition or is it just all going to be routed from your position of hating her?
gozunda wrote: » And yet she sailed across the ocean whilst the crew took flights. How the fek does that raise awareness of anything as per the basic premise of this thread. No one has answered that. Why not fly? Why the hypocrisy? Did they honestly think the great unwashed wouldn't notice? What exactly was her cameraman there for except PR? The Book - The camera appearances - The interviews and yet I am asked "what limelight?" Lol. You have the answers. Dont like that? Sorry it doesnt suit the narrative...
gozunda wrote: » And yet she sailed across the ocean whilst the crew took flights. How the fek does that raise awareness of anything as per the basic premise of this thread.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The snide comments really don't help you make your point though all that you seem willing to put forward is that you don't think much of Thunberg via your silly comments.I had a read of the OP. I suppose a young woman expressing herself and showing concern for the world as a whole triggers certain men for some reason. It's all a bit sad really.
hetuzozaho wrote: » But it raised awareness. It meant it was in the news every day for weeks. People talking about the UN climate summit. Multiple threads here. Millions marching. Job done no?
gozunda wrote: » And yet she sailed across the ocean whilst the crew took flights. How the fek does that raise awareness of anything as per the basic premise of this thread. No one has answered that. Why not fly? Why the hypocrisy? Did they honestly think the great unwashed wouldn't notice? What exactly was her cameraman there for except PR? The Book - The camera appearances - The interviews and yet I am asked "what limelight?" Lol. You have the answers. Dont like that? Sorry it doesnt suit the narrative.. Btw I mentioned nothing about monetization btw. And despite the usual hyperbole no one "hates her" (sic).
gozunda wrote: » Nope. Not when the hypocrisy of the voyage is the foundation on which the whole thing falls. But there you go ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tell me how wrote: » You should check up on how exactly to use the adverb 'sic'. You've being using it incorrectly throughout this thread. The rest of your post does not refer to answers, but your opinion, which I can disagree with it because it is non evidence based.
