Isn't she just some girl that advocates for more people to care about climate change? Which is almost universally agreed upon to be a problem, as it is a fact. I could understand people attacking her because she's left/right and is talking about political issues (maybe she is, I wouldn't know), but fighting against climate change is like the most innocuous thing someone can do.
shareThat's just it: the whole thing is political 100%.
shareAnd, no, it is not universally agreed upon that man-made climate change is real. If you're interested in hearing more, please do a youtube search for "dr. Willie Soon".
shareI said almost universally agreed upon, because I know that there are some pretty kooky individuals out there. We live in a world where flat earthers exist
shareAgreement is not fact.
shareAs someone who doesn't really care about climate change because it won't become a real problem until long after I'm dead, I don't really understand how you can deny man-made climate change. I know it's really tied to politics and such, but refuting something that is a fact (the word fact is appropriate in this case) really does weaken your agenda and narrow your audience to incredibly stubborn people and corporations that would lose a lot of money if climate change bills were passed
shareThe problem with the bills is that they are political, and do nothing to slow down developing nations, or large corporations. Proposing eco-fascism on the regular population will ensure these bill go no where, and people's minds will never change, only harden.
shareI posted two links above that showed how I could deny it. The least you could do is acknowledge them as a legitimate attempt at an answer.
shareThe point of this post was just to know why she's so unpopular with a lot of people, I don't actually care about the debate itself. There is no reason for someone who isn't concerned with climate change to watch someone try to debunk it. At least with flat earthers I can derive some enjoyment, but climate change is too deep rooted with politics for me, someone who is apathetic to politics.
And at this point I'm kinda done with this thread, I've lost interest in this topic and am going back to discuss movies which I actually like doing
I said I didn't believe in man-made climate change; I never said I was not concerned with the topic. Please don't conflate the two.
And if the topic scares you off because you don't find it cool or sexy, then maybe you should go back to watching your little movies.
Meanwhile, adults like myself feel it is important to get to the bedrock of these questions if we're all going to live together in this ever expanding society, regardless if the discussions are somewhat uncomfortable or even contentious.
There. I am done now, too.
I said I didn't believe in man-made climate change; I never said I was not concerned with the topic. Please don't conflate the two.
And if the topic scares you off because you don't find it cool or sexy, then maybe you should go back to watching your little movies.
Meanwhile, adults like myself feel it is important to get to the bedrock of these questions if we're all going to live together in this ever expanding society, regardless if the discussions are somewhat uncomfortable or even contentious.
There. I am done now, too.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You wrote:
Which is almost universally agreed upon to be a problem, as it is a fact...something that is a fact (the word fact is appropriate in this case)And it indicates that you're not indifferent. share
I guess it depends what you define indifferent as. For example, god not existing is a fact, and I would say the same if for some reason I got into a argument about god (something I hope will never happen, as it will be about as pointless as what we're doing now). But I would still consider myself indifferent towards christianity, as I don't really involve myself in anything christianity related and don't care about christianity.
shareWhat is meant by the word God?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
But the politics that are set to gain, are a lot worse than anything else.
shareI said almost universally agreed upon, because I know that there are some pretty kooky individuals out there. We live in a world where flat earthers exist
[deleted]
Grown men who haven't left the playground where they terrorized and bullied other kids. Time to grow up and start acting like real men. A real man wouldn't bully a child.
shareThe vitriol I see aimed at this teenage girl is pretty sick.
shareThe thing is a lot of these boy-men have daughters. Men like this are absolute embarrassment to their own young girls. I wonder how many of their daughters know how ugly they are to this child? Probably not many.
shareAnonymity allows people to share some awful thoughts.
shareRight, but still you have to wonder how these boy-men could ever father a daughter when they have such rage and bad feelings toward a young girl. It boggles the mind.
shareIt is very troubling.
shareTheir rage has nothing to do with her gender. They just don't agree with her, and especially don't appreciate the tone in which she disagrees with them, so they get nasty. Many of you are just gender obsessed, so you try to make it about that. She's playing in the big leagues, regardless of her age or gender. So, she and her worshipers shouldn't be surprised when she gets the same treatment that everyone else playing in the same political big leagues gets. Think of it like when a girl wants to join her brothers and their friends in the weekly pick-up basketball game. Do they just all of a sudden not play defense and let her score/win at will and ruin their experience because of her age and gender? Seems like inequality, no? If you want to play, be prepared to play. If you're not prepared, sit on the bench and wait until you are, then give 'em hell.
I want to make it clear that I have no dog in this (nor the vast majority of other) political race(s). This is just the truth.
I'm not her worshiper or even supporter, but seriously, the vitriol is disgusting. It's on both sides. I'm not calling out righties or lefties, it's everyone. Whatever happened to disagreeing on a topic without insulting someone? The school ground insults, like potato and gollum coming from grownups is pathetic. No one should have to be prepared for that.
shareI'll call out the right for you. The political discourse from them is sickening. Their King is a horrible, narcissistic, lying jerk. They made their bed, let them lay in it.
shareIt's not just the right though. I wish it was.
The right and the left need to stop seeing themselves as enemies. I think most people on this planet want the same thing, we just have different methods of achieving those goals. I'm just afraid that it's gonna get worse before this society collapses and we rebuild.
The republican agenda on several fronts IS an enemy of the people.
Deregulation lets companies pollute our water and air. Trickle-down economics has been shown to not work yet they still champion it. Trying to dismantle the ACA(as they have tried) would take healthcare away from millions. Those things attack people, so politicians and voters that push for them ARE my enemy.
People can boycott whomever they want, and they'll be out of business. There are better alternatives than ACA. Same can be said about other suboptimal solutions.
shareWhat about the consequences of the methods?
shareWhich consequences are you referring to? Every action has a consequence.
shareThe bad consequences of different methods of achieving those goals.
shareExample of these bad consequences please?
sharehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
What is your argument? I'm sorry I don't really get your point. I'm assuming that you are against these social systems. But I noticed that you didn't post any criticisms of capitalism. Also, these are extremes.
All systems have pros and cons. There is also currently not one country in the western world that is all capitalist or socialist. I think that is because most countries have found success with a combination of social systems.
So again, what is your argument here?
Ref vitriol/insults etc when one is up against consequences.
Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.
Okay, so conservatism then.
You'll also have to excuse me because I have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.
You wrote about vitriol/insults in political discource, I'm saying anything is justified considering the consequences of various ideologies/methods.
shareAnd you have not answered what the current consequences which you are referring to are, other than grown ups insulting a teenager's looks.
shareConsequences of various ideologies/methods, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism etc.
You are repeating yourself. What is YOUR opinion? How does this tie into the conversation we are having about grown ups insulting a teenager and decorum being tossed to the side?
Where is the actual threat of any of these ideologies in their pure form being inacted? How does that impact the goal of a cleaner world? Again how does it relate to the topic at hand? And how would it not be a benefit for the different sides to stop seeing themselves as enemies and to work together?
If you are just going to post wikipedia articles, which I can edit myself, please don't bother wasting my time with a response.
Political ideologies/methods have consequences, teenager promoting said ideologies/methods, warrants a reaction/blowback.
Various centralized and collectivist political movements strive for policies similar to mentioned ideologies.
Nothing wrong with a cleaner world, problem is using the cleaner world argument as an excuse to implement authoritarian central planning/collectivism. You can't work together with people who want to force you into "cooperating".
The Wikipedia articles are nothing but nonsense, the ideologies are in fact all peaceful and safe?
No, but we work together now (or we did until recently) as separate nations regardless of the ideologies of our countries. Even in politics, with different ideologies we get better results when we don't insult the appearances of our allies. Who is forcing anyone into cooperating?
As far as I've seen with Greta's speeches, she is not promoting ideologies, or methods. She is saying that governments aren't doing enough and should be held accountable. Now agree with her, disagree with her, there is no reason to verbally attack her with insults.
Government is force.
What does held accountable entail?
where do you live that you think government is force?
In this situation I think the accountability comes from the electorate as well as in trade with other countries.
What is government if not force, the initiation of force?
What does accountability imply?
Comes not from the child?
trade with other countries?
I totally agree (see my reply to modica below). I'm just trying to be realistic about the way the game is played, regardless of age or gender.
sharePlaying in the big leagues? Not really. She is being harassed by a bunch of boy-men who just like to pick on a young girl. It happened to Chelsea Clinton and she didn't put herself out there when Bill became President. They called her ugly and a dog. These are the same people who are doing that to this girl now.
shareBarron
sharePlaying in the big leagues? Not really. She is being harassed by a bunch of boy-men who just like to pick on a young girl. It happened to Chelsea Clinton and she didn't put herself out there when Bill became President. They called her ugly and a dog. These are the same people who are doing that to this girl now.
shareRepublican men have long been afraid of smart, powerful females (just look how they quiver with Nancy Pelosi these days). It doesn't matter the age of the female - they are out to insult these females because they can't compete intellectually.
shareTrue. People who have little or no cognitive ability so they have to resort to base tactics to try and destroy the other person. Playground bullies use this against others who are intellectually superior or have qualities that make them stand out in the crowd. Much of the rancor that is spewed from the mouths of bullies is due to the ineptness of the individual. The only way they can match the superior mind or personality is through babyish name-calling.
share smart, powerful females "
she is mentally sick.... with several diagnosis
I'm not referring to her naysayers as "the big leagues", but rather the stage she has put, or found, herself on. That's kind of my point. Name one person in politics, on either side, that society doesn't do this with. It's not right or ideal, I agree, but it is to be expected.
shareSo 13 year old Chelsea Clinton deserved being called a dog and ugly just because her father became President? Also, it is so funny that some of the same people who called Chelsea names are all up in arms when someone says anything about Barron. These bullies are incapable of having an intelligent conversation and that is why they resort to bullying or parroting what FoxNews or other Republicans say.
shareChelsea Clinton stole money right?
libs said barron had a mental issue, and would be the next (home) school shooter...... that is very different than saying people are ugly
She was 13. What money did she steal when she was called a dog and ugly. It is no different calling some young girl ugly than it is to call Barron mentally ill. Both are wrong, but a Republican will never admit that. They always call people names, because that is all they know how to do.
shareYou're just not hearing me, because you're so emotionally invested in your attack on your "enemies". No, she didn't deserve that. As I said earlier, no one does, 13 or 73, male or female, but it's just the way it is and neither you, nor I, can change it. For all we know, Greta just laughs at all of it as she rakes in the money and fame. You shouldn't let it emotionally affect you so much. That's my point. I've yet to read anything where she commented on being emotionally or mentally affected by it. That's part of what makes it so odd when her worshipers insist on being upset for her. Same with Trump's worshipers. All of them. It's very odd. It's very odd to care about someone, that doesn't even know you exist, (and if they did, they still wouldn't care about you or your daily life) to such a degree. I'm not sure how many of you actually care at such a level vs how many of you just enjoy the fight and don't actually care at all about the person/topic at hand.
sharePolitics have consequences, why shouldn't emotions etc be involved?
shareBecause those without authority shouldn't trouble themselves with fake responsibility. The whole thing is a sham. "The vote" is a lie. We have no actual power as citizens. Yet, so many of us spend the majority of our lives emotionally distraught over a real life soap opera.
shareRioters/demonstrators etc have some authority? And politics do have consequences.
shareNot really, IMO. That's why candidates have been running on the exact same platforms since before my grandfather was born. The last thing politicians want to do is actually change or fix anything. The doctor loses value if you don't get sick. The mechanic loses value if the car doesn't have troubles. If problems in life actually got fixed or solved, who would need a politician? It's a career in "busy work"; looking like you're doing a lot, while actually doing nothing at all.
shareIf the people put their mind to it, they can make a change.
shareThen attack the people who use her!
shareYeah, it's not just men, but nice attempt at misandry.
shareDoes it really matter if it's a man or woman? Saying horrific things about a teenager that is bringing attention to climate change is abhorrent behavior regardless of sex.
shareThen tell activists to stop exploiting children.
shareWhile I agree with this, the vitriol uncalled for.
shareThat's a fake argument. You think you understand who this person is and why she is saying what she does.
I think I can speak for you and I think you are a brainwashed, nasty person. How's that work?
Shouldn't use 'men/man'.
shareUsing a child is the problem, not arguing against the child, arguing against a child being used.
shareThere are ways to argue against her without making fun of her looks or autism. That shit is low-brow.
shareBeing a child/having autism impacts what she does/says.
shareSo does being uneducated. So does having a low IQ. Should we openly make fun of those people as well?
shareOne should not point out that someone discussing politics is unqualified?
shareSure you can call her unqualified. That's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed are the hateful insults being hurled at a teenage girl. Try to keep up.
shareFacts are not hateful, i.e. pointing out she's a girl, she's diagnosed with this and that etc, is elaborating on her being unqualified.
shareI'm talking about calling her "potato girl" and "Gollum" and making fun of her looks. That isn't being factual. For one beauty is very subjective. Secondly it's just being mean spirited and has nothing to do with the message she brings.
shareBody language is communication too, not just what she says.
shareWhat difference does that make? That has nothing to do with this conversation. And LMAO at reading her "body language". Is that the excuse you use for attacking her looks and the fact that she has assbergers? You guys have sunk to a new low, and that's a bold statement.
sharePhysical appearance.
shareSo making fun of a teenage girls physical appearance is cool with you? That's a level you are comfortable with?
shareHer physical presentation/body language/facial expression etc.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1600&bih=813&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=tUsOXqeoD8P4qwHQ0pTIAQ&q=greta+face&oq=greta+face&gs_l=img.3..0l10.27582.27582..27897...1.0..0.59.161.3......0....1..gws-wiz-img.djLrIW4_rX0&ved=0ahUKEwjn1tmV2uXmAhVD_CoKHVApBRkQ4dUDCAY&uact=5
It's like real life became a Pippy Longstocking movie.
shareshe need to go to the middle east, africa and asia....... where they pollute like crazy and don't give a fuck about it, and also overpopulate our poor mother earth.......
if she goes there and complain and rip them a new one/ scold them ........ then i have no issue with her.
but she won't.......
She openly admits her agenda doesn't have much to do about the climate, and more to do with power and control. She wants to line up politicians against the wall(murder), she is a horrible person, and has been insanely indoctrinated by her parents.
shareWhere has she said this? Can I get a link?
shareThis is a start. You can choose any report on it.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=greta+admits+its+political&ia=web
I found nothing she said in that article wrong. Gov'ts are working hand in hand with polluters. It does need to change.
shareThat doesn't matter. All these people want to so is tax and regulate so they feel like they're doing something. They're not. Agree or disagree, there's no solution put forth by any politician or activist.
shareCutting pollution is a good start. That is being "put forth". Cleaner air and water is something everybody should be able to get behind. The right drags their feet on this. Right now Trump is trying to push less efficient toilets, dishwashers, light bulbs, etc. It's ridiculous.
shareTo be fair...
Toilets: If people actually have to flush their toilets multiple times to get their shit down the pipe, then yes, they are using more water than 1 flush of a hi-flow.
Light Bulbs: Incandescent light bulbs have their place in the home. Any room or space where light is not constantly needed, an incandescent bulb is the better choice because they are built to be turned on and off frequently, and if they are installed in places that normally are dark, they will last quite a long time. Think closets, bathrooms, etc. CFL and LED bulbs are meant to be constantly on, and do not hold up well being turned on/off frequently and will actually burn out as a result, so the more expensive bulb is a waste of $.
I have a really nice dishwasher so I can't comment on cheap ones...if they don't clean the dishes, and need to be run multiple times....again, that is not saving water it's wasting more water than the older ones ever did.
The right/conservatives aren't dragging their feet, they keep the progressives and lefties from running off the cliffs of unintended consequences. If change is too much, too fast, many parts of society will reject it, and calling them names and demonizing them for what they believe only harden their beliefs and that is what really stagnates change.
But Trump is exaggerating about having to flush multiple times and the whole dishwasher tirade was laughable!! This is just more bullshit Trump is shoveling so the U.S. can dial back environmental protection. The protections don't need to "dial back". These problems Trump seems to know so much about are not problems. There is no consumer push for less-efficient appliances.
This article explains the origin of this push.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/471365-trump-admin-moves-ahead-with-plans-to-weaken-efficiency-standards
I dunno, I looked into the toilet thing, and I found quite a bit of articles about this issue. He may be over exaggerating, but he does have a point. You can't just write everything he says off because you don;t like him.
shareRelaxing efficiency standards is just a right-winged M.O. This is just typical republican bullshit "fixing" a problem that doesn't need fixing in the first place. Efficiency standards are important and will only get more important as population grows. It's maddening seeing a President pushing this horse shit when SO many other things need attention. What about that healthcare bill Trump promised? The wall Mexico was paying for? Where are his tax returns he promised to released. Face it, dude, Trump is a fucking liar. Trump voters should be ashamed.
shareEnforcement is costing Mexico.
shareThat isn't "Mexico paying for the wall". There is no amount of spin in the world to cover up the fact that Trump is a sociopathic liar.
shareWall isn't necessarily a physical wall along the border, it can be anything that slows down the illegal immigration.
shareThat isn't what Trump was talking about. Trump was talking about a physical wall. Stop the lie. Just admit Trump is full of shit.
And FWIW, illegal immigration has steadily been going down since 2007.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
Trump was talking about stopping illegal immigration, a wall is one of many means to achieve that.
shareIllegal immigration was already in a decline. Trump hasn't done a thing.
shareYes, he has!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-border-wall-construction-underway-for-the-first-stretch-built-under-president-trump-2019-12-04/
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/08/donald-trump-border-arrests-results-1712730
An 8-mile stretch of the wall is costing $167 million. The article points out that $10 billion(yes, BILLION) has been diverted from gov't agencies to pay for the wall. $10 billion of TAX-PAYER money for a wall Mexico was supposed to pay for. Trump is a lying sack of shit that is stealing from Americans.
shareIllegal Mexicans won't be allowed entry to take jobs and send money back to Mexico.
shareIllegal immigration has been on the decline since 2007. Border enforcement is important to me, but a wall across the whole border is an antiquated idea. Go hi-tech with sensors and drones and pay more border agents. The "wall" is just another building Trump wants to slap his name on. It's also something simple enough to get his voters behind. He realizes if his ideas are too complicated the uneducated right won't understand them.
shareJohn McCain fucked us over for health care reform...talk to him.
shareRepublicans controlled all three branches of the gov't in Trump's first 2 years. How did McCain keep the repubs from crafting a HC bill and passing it?
sharePaul Ryan
sharePaul Ryan stopped a HC bill from being crafted and passed in the 2 years Trump and repubs controlled all 3 branches of gov't? How did he do that?
sharePaul Ryan was a leader in Congress, i.e. not getting things done with a majority in Congress.
shareTrump is the leader of them all. Are you telling me Trump can't pass a bill when he controls all three branches of congress? That is such crap. The fact of the matter is Trump didn't even start a healthcare bill. Something he promised to do. Just another example of Trump being a lying sack of shit.
shareOur water has never been more clean. Our air is also cleaner than ever before. This was done mainly by business innovation. Some regulation in the 70's helped, but since then governments havent actually producesmd any results. The EPA is actually responsible for more water contamination than most production companies. So you're just wasting time.
shareThe EPA is responsible for more water contamination that production companies? I'd love to see a source for that. Thanks in advance.
shareYou're welcome. Heres your start. There's more in which their regulation of local water sewers caused cities to postpone updating the system.
You sound young. Give it a few years and you'll see a lot of this.
https://offgridsurvival.com/epacontaminatescoloradoriver/
That was an accidental spill you goof. It doesn't back up your claim.
You sound old. And senile.
Because a goof isn't pollution? Nice try puddin.
shareSo you won't acknowledge the difference between an accident and a purposeful act? You really suck at this old man.
shareAs if that matters. Most cases of big pollution are accidental. The EPA is right in there with other polluters. BTW, I know you got your view of politics from ferngully and captain planet but those were cartoons. Grow up.
shareThe EPA is actually responsible for more water contamination than most production companies.
Look it up. You'll learn.
shareIt was a accidental spill.
shareCaused by the EPA. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious.
shareStill an accident you dementia-ridden troll.
shareThat doesn't negate the pollution they caused. Nice deflection.
shareIt's not deflection. You can't seem to tell the difference in an accident and a purposeful act. It's horseshit.
shareThe comment was on the EPA pollutting. Accidentally or intentionally, they caused a massive contamination of water. You deflected by saying it was just an accident. It doesn't change the fact. You lost and got triggered. I'm just laughing.
shareCleaner air and water, yes, but not socialism.
shareDude, what do you think the police dept is? How do you think roads get built? Courthouses? This is all socialism.
shareThe PD and DPW do not require 70% of our taxes so women in 3rd world countries can have 7 babies.
Bad comparison.
So 70% of our taxes go to women in 3rd world countries that have a bunch of babies. Do you have a source for that, Skippy?
shareIt's 1, out of many!
shareSo where is the source for your assertion? Can you back up your claims or are you talking out of your ass?
shareGovernment budget.
sharePost a link to back up your claims.
sharehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2020-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2020-BUD.pdf
shareThat is the upcoming budget you dimwit. I want you to back up your assertion that 70% of our taxes go to third world women who have a bunch of kids. Seriously, dude, if you don't start backing up what you say I have no interest in conversing with you.
shareI'm guessing B1cKsurN is saying 70 % of the budget ain't for PD and DPW, and that women in 3rd world countries can have 7 babies, is an example of what the government is spending the tax revenues on.
shareThat isn't what was said.
And sorry, dickburn snuck a post in that I thought was yours.
What was said?
shareScroll up and read it yourself.
shareI scrolled up and read women in 3rd world countries can have 7 babies amongst other stuff, so what was said(i.e. what are you referring to specifically)?
shareWhat was said is that 70% of our taxes go towards 3rd world mothers with 7 babies.
Is that simple enough for you? Do you understand? FFS man you are a tedious bastard.
You're the one claiming 70% of our taxes go towards 3rd world mothers with 7 babies.
shareMost EU countries that have adopted American Progressive's version of "socialism", have had their taxes raised to 70%. These same countries have also signed on to the Paris Accord, and are now transferring their nation's wealth to under developed nations that have no means to control their pollution or population growth.
The DP and DPW do not require 70% of my taxes to operate, so the comparison is egregious at best.
I know, there was a lot to unpack there.
No, it isn't!
shareSwedish government schools, media etc, are also to blame.
share