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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Reaching out the other side by doing what? Burning the planet?
The left will always lose for our ‘complex feelings’
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.
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.
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?
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?
They’re all activists?
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
Oooh I get it. Wow. That’s witty. Well done.