Uh… What the fuck man? This woman was going to an active warzone to deliver aid to genocide victims. Let me repeat, she was headed to an active warzone where aid workers have routinely been targeted and murdered. If you think that’s making a career out of a viral moment then you need to fuck off.
Sure, she’s an inspiration and she’s courageous and selfless and her heart is in the right place.
Other people were on this boat who were also at risk, many other atrocities have occurred during this war and the one in Ukraine in which Greta wasn’t present. Her involvement in this one is not why it’s significant, and the people present at all the others were no less courageous than Greta.
In fact, there’s a lot of other people being a lot more courageous receiving a lot less recognition.
Additionally, in some cases the recognition Greta receives is counter-productive. I mean, putting a world famous influencer on a humanitarian mission to a place where the aggressors want as little attention as possible isn’t really a sound strategy.
All that aside, I have two main concerns:
One is that Greta is the hero of the leftists, but she’s unable to engage with the right - the people who really need to alter their behavior. To them she’s just an insufferable child who makes them feel guilty - that’s not how you reach people and propagate change.
Second is that, I don’t think she’s used her influence very well. During the US campaign she was pushing the “both sides bad” narrative.
Edit: I’m happy to wear the drive-by downvotes, but I had hoped for some more compelling rebuttals - 150 downvotes deep and the best we’ve received is that Kamala was bad.
No it very much is political, political simply means ‘relating to govt. conduct/policy’.
Eating grapes is political if the govt. decides that everyone needs to eat grapes and sets policies towards that end. Obviously speaking with hyperbole, but you understand my point.
So yes, I would say it’s a political decision to decide to end a genocide - especially when the genocide is being carried out by local govt. The choice of whether or not to end a genocide should be obvious.
Make zionism as internationally illegal as Nazism, and stage a multinational intervention in the region to remove all traces of zionism while returning the two nations to 1967 borders while wider talks are discussed to create a single actual democratic state of Palestine encompassing the entirety (minus Syria) of Israel and Palestine current borders.
However, none of my family got sent to the torture-rape-death camp Sde Teimen to be raped to death, and none of my nieces or nephews were kidnapped by the IDF in the West Bank…
I think the victims of genocide should be the ones that get to choose what happens to their slaughterers.
She is not a “hero to the leftists” as much as someone trying to do the right thing. Hats off to her, but the average aid worker in a war zone is more of a hero.
If the goal is more publicity rather than the aid that had a low chance of making it through, it is very smart to have a world famous influencer aboard.
Why do you assume she endangered the others rather than they chose to take a calculated risk?
I mean, putting a world famous influencer on a humanitarian mission to a place where the aggressors want as little attention as possible isn’t really a sound strategy.
How? If anything it is sound strategy because it puts the media’s eyes on the event. It’s one thing to kill a bunch of nameless activists, but it’s another to kill Greta Thunberg, or at least I’d like to believe it is.
One is that Greta is the hero of the leftists, but she’s unable to engage with the right - the people who really need to alter their behavior.
They’re never gonna change their behavior, or at least not due to messaging from the left. The right will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to civilization by the sane two thirds of society. Trying to get the right on board with good things is a fool’s errand. In general, the role of leftwing activists is to either promote their own politicians or force neoliberals’ hands, not persuade the right.
During the US campaign she was pushing the “both sides bad” narrative.
I mean she’s right. We can argue about the tactical merits and demerits of endorsing Harris all day but the fact of the matter is that she was an absolutely terrible candidate and “What the shit? You want me to endorse that‽” is a valid position to take no matter how you personally feel about it. Greta didn’t get where she is now by compromising with neoliberals and there’s no reason to expect her to start now.
I mean she’s right. We can argue about the tactical merits and demerits of endorsing Harris all day but the fact of the matter is that she was an absolutely terrible candidate
Sorry, if that’s your opinion, having installed a fascist dictator who has ruined the global economy and set up concentration camps, then you don’t have any credibility.
I don’t need any credibility to say that Kamala border wall/fracking/“most lethal army in the world”/“Nothing comes to mind” Harris was anything short of absolutely terrible.
No that’s true, you don’t need to have any credibility to say anything you like, but when you say things that demonstrate a complete lack of reason it undermines everything else you say.
Edit: I’m happy to wear the drive-by downvotes, but I had hoped for some more compelling rebuttals
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It’s that simple. Nothing you’ve said really makes sense as an argument for why Greta Thunberg shouldn’t do what she does. It’s just an argument that we also need other people contributing other things.
The rest of the world is not USA my man, my country has at least 10 political parties that go anywhere from progressive to conservative and being “right wing” can still mean they have ideas that support the environment or human rights.
We’re not all like the USA where you can choose between “the right” and the “ultra right” wing party.
There are right wing parties here that support Gretas ideas. And left wing parties that disagree with her.
I can completely understand her “both sides are bad” point since politics are wildly different in the EU from the US. We have actually choice here where as the US is just voting for the lesser evil (or the greater evil in case of Trump lol).
No, the dems undermined the dems in the US. Greta is just reacting to the bad shit that the dems served in response to the republican’s worse shit when they could have actually served some proper good shit.
Uh… What the fuck man? This woman was going to an active warzone to deliver aid to genocide victims. Let me repeat, she was headed to an active warzone where aid workers have routinely been targeted and murdered. If you think that’s making a career out of a viral moment then you need to fuck off.
I have complex feelings regarding Greta.
Sure, she’s an inspiration and she’s courageous and selfless and her heart is in the right place.
Other people were on this boat who were also at risk, many other atrocities have occurred during this war and the one in Ukraine in which Greta wasn’t present. Her involvement in this one is not why it’s significant, and the people present at all the others were no less courageous than Greta.
In fact, there’s a lot of other people being a lot more courageous receiving a lot less recognition.
Additionally, in some cases the recognition Greta receives is counter-productive. I mean, putting a world famous influencer on a humanitarian mission to a place where the aggressors want as little attention as possible isn’t really a sound strategy.
All that aside, I have two main concerns:
One is that Greta is the hero of the leftists, but she’s unable to engage with the right - the people who really need to alter their behavior. To them she’s just an insufferable child who makes them feel guilty - that’s not how you reach people and propagate change.
Second is that, I don’t think she’s used her influence very well. During the US campaign she was pushing the “both sides bad” narrative.
Edit: I’m happy to wear the drive-by downvotes, but I had hoped for some more compelling rebuttals - 150 downvotes deep and the best we’ve received is that Kamala was bad.
She’s unable to engage with the right because she’s a…
Decent Human Being
…We’ll see if Elon can do it, he’s a piece of shit, they should find him very relatable.
Right? Like what is his argument? “I don’t like Greta because she doesn’t cater to everybody.”
No, I said it up top. She’s unable to reach the people who need to change, and she’s actively undermined those who can.
It’s great that you love her, but you don’t need to hear her message, do you.
Do you know any examples of people who are able to reach the people who need to change?
Harris.
She couldn’t even reach out to the people in her own aisle, let alone the other side. How many registered republicans voted for her in the end?
you’re making shit up, do you personally know her that she has ulterior motive
shes everything they are not.
This is hyperbolic.
AOC and Bernie are doing it. Are they not decent human beings?
Why compare a European activist to two American politicians?
Of course they try to get on with the American right, they need their votes.
She had plenty to say about three candidates during the US election, which has had a big impact on Europe and the rest of the world.
Yes of course. But she doesn’t need to appeal to the American electorate for her job. I’m not sure what point you think you’re making?
That’s two of us then I guess. No idea what point you’re trying to make.
He, and I, want to know why you’re comparing a Swedish environmental activist to an American politician?
Removed by mod
The left will always lose for our ‘complex feelings’
Reaching out the other side by doing what? Burning the planet?
This mission was delivering aid to gaza, a highly politicised topic.
Trying to prevent genocide isn’t political. Would you have said trying to stop Hitler from gassing the Jews in concentration camps was too political?
No it very much is political, political simply means ‘relating to govt. conduct/policy’.
Eating grapes is political if the govt. decides that everyone needs to eat grapes and sets policies towards that end. Obviously speaking with hyperbole, but you understand my point.
So yes, I would say it’s a political decision to decide to end a genocide - especially when the genocide is being carried out by local govt. The choice of whether or not to end a genocide should be obvious.
Of course its political. A political solution is required in order to end the violence.
Spoken like someone who would have voted for McClellan during the civil war to make peace with the south.
How do you propose achieving peace in the Israel / Palestine conflict?
Make zionism as internationally illegal as Nazism, and stage a multinational intervention in the region to remove all traces of zionism while returning the two nations to 1967 borders while wider talks are discussed to create a single actual democratic state of Palestine encompassing the entirety (minus Syria) of Israel and Palestine current borders.
Personally, I think the South African model.
However, none of my family got sent to the torture-rape-death camp Sde Teimen to be raped to death, and none of my nieces or nephews were kidnapped by the IDF in the West Bank…
I think the victims of genocide should be the ones that get to choose what happens to their slaughterers.
She is not a “hero to the leftists” as much as someone trying to do the right thing. Hats off to her, but the average aid worker in a war zone is more of a hero.
Everyone is trying to do the right thing, some are more effective than others.
No. Not everyone.
People who voted for McClellan during the civil war instead of Lincoln weren’t trying to do the right thing.
They were trying to make peace with slavers.
They were trying to be complicit with slavery.
Are you implying that a vote for the democrats is tantamount to making peace with slavers?
Maybe take a moment to reflect on the last several months. The republicans are implementing a new slave class. What have you done to stop them?
If the goal is more publicity rather than the aid that had a low chance of making it through, it is very smart to have a world famous influencer aboard.
Why do you assume she endangered the others rather than they chose to take a calculated risk?
So she reduced the chance of successful delivery in order to secure publicity in the near certainty that the aid could not be delivered?
Maybe just me but that doesn’t seem like a good strategy.
How? If anything it is sound strategy because it puts the media’s eyes on the event. It’s one thing to kill a bunch of nameless activists, but it’s another to kill Greta Thunberg, or at least I’d like to believe it is.
They’re never gonna change their behavior, or at least not due to messaging from the left. The right will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to civilization by the sane two thirds of society. Trying to get the right on board with good things is a fool’s errand. In general, the role of leftwing activists is to either promote their own politicians or force neoliberals’ hands, not persuade the right.
I mean she’s right. We can argue about the tactical merits and demerits of endorsing Harris all day but the fact of the matter is that she was an absolutely terrible candidate and “What the shit? You want me to endorse that‽” is a valid position to take no matter how you personally feel about it. Greta didn’t get where she is now by compromising with neoliberals and there’s no reason to expect her to start now.
Sorry, if that’s your opinion, having installed a fascist dictator who has ruined the global economy and set up concentration camps, then you don’t have any credibility.
I don’t need any credibility to say that Kamala border wall/fracking/“most lethal army in the world”/“Nothing comes to mind” Harris was anything short of absolutely terrible.
No that’s true, you don’t need to have any credibility to say anything you like, but when you say things that demonstrate a complete lack of reason it undermines everything else you say.
Then why do you keep posting?
On the off chance I could encourage someone to engage in some critical thinking I guess.
Whoosh
If everyone you meet today is an asshole…
Well neither side has done enough, if anything, about people dying in Gaza.
Sure, but my point is that lots more people have been a lot more effective than Greta, who IMO has been counter productive.
How has she been counterproductive?
She was pushing the both sides narrative during the US campaign.
Well both sides support Israel, therefore both sides are bad.
Which US leader do you think Palestinians preferred?
Is there a USA politician that supports Palestine?
Edit; changed it a bit for clarity.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It’s that simple. Nothing you’ve said really makes sense as an argument for why Greta Thunberg shouldn’t do what she does. It’s just an argument that we also need other people contributing other things.
If that were true, why has my mild criticism been met with such derision?
Your complaint was that it had mostly been met with silent downvotes.
Which tracks with my point.
The rest of the world is not USA my man, my country has at least 10 political parties that go anywhere from progressive to conservative and being “right wing” can still mean they have ideas that support the environment or human rights.
We’re not all like the USA where you can choose between “the right” and the “ultra right” wing party.
There are right wing parties here that support Gretas ideas. And left wing parties that disagree with her.
I can completely understand her “both sides are bad” point since politics are wildly different in the EU from the US. We have actually choice here where as the US is just voting for the lesser evil (or the greater evil in case of Trump lol).
Greta undermined the dems in the US campaign. Perhaps not enough to cost them the election, but not very bright regardless.
Given everything that has happened in the last few months that’s pretty shameful.
No, the dems undermined the dems in the US. Greta is just reacting to the bad shit that the dems served in response to the republican’s worse shit when they could have actually served some proper good shit.