Time Magazine Person of the Year: Greta Thunberg

[Californication | 1,490]

2 hours ago, Sumez said:

She's representing the demand to do something immediately to save the planet, so anyone that criticizes her will look like a fool. Doesn't matter who she is, and she never even claimed to be an expert on anything. She's just out there to make people talk, and at least that part is working. Too bad it brings out all the conspiracy nutjobs, too.

The thing is action against climate change is not looked on kindly by corporations. Corporations are worried about their bottom line and see the girl as a threat. Since the Republican party serves the corporations and uses conspiracy nuts to give them an auto vote with a certain slow segment of the population you see a direct increase in guys who repeat stupid things in relation to the girl.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

12 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Everyone convince the other side yet?  Bridge the partisan gap?  Solve polarization?

Or just entrench further?

Maybe a thread on abortion next

Yea I wasn't sure how this thread was going to go but overall I'd say it actually went pretty well despite the opposing viewpoints.

I mean, besides that one dude calling for genocide, but whatever.

[themisfit138 | 523]

3 hours ago, Californication said:

The thing is action against climate change is not looked on kindly by corporations. Corporations are worried about their bottom line and see the girl as a threat. Since the Republican party serves the corporations and uses conspiracy nuts to give them an auto vote with a certain slow segment of the population you see a direct increase in guys who repeat stupid things in relation to the girl.

This is only half true. All politicians and political parties cater to some corporation. All groups are using this girl to some ends. 

[Californication | 1,490]

That is a right wing framing to begin with to say that she is being used. 

Also, you should be more careful when you use the word "all".

Edited December 13, 2019 by Californication

[Tabonga | 2,363]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

 

I mean, besides that one dude calling for genocide, but whatever.

I basically said that if one believes the party line on this it is pretty inescapable that population reduction is necessary.  Since I don't believe the party line how could I be calling for genocide? 

And I never made any suggestions on how that reduction should be achieved -  you apparently have come up with your own solution since you went there.

It was actually a case of argumention by taking something to its logical extremes*........

*A good suggested reading is "A Modest Proposal" (1729) by Jonathan Swift  - accompanied by a brief explanatory guide placing it in its time.

And I actually have a user name........

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

26 minutes ago, Wandering Tellurian said:

I basically said that if one believes the party line on this it is pretty inescapable that population reduction is necessary.  Since I don't believe the party line how could I be calling for genocide? 

And I never made any suggestions on how that reduction should be achieved -  you apparently have come up with your own solution since you went there.

It was actually a case of argumention by taking something to its logical extremes*........

*A good suggested reading is "A Modest Proposal" (1729) by Jonathan Swift  - accompanied by a brief explanatory guide placing it in its time.

And I actually have a user name........

Calm down, I'm just joking around.

[Tabonga | 2,363]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Calm down, I'm just joking around.

As was I - suspect that I have a darker sense of humor than you though.........

Edited December 13, 2019 by Wandering Tellurian

[CodysGameRoom | 2,009]

[G-type | 2,601]

On 12/11/2019 at 8:57 PM, Rooster said:

I would have rather seen the HK protestors win, to be honest. 

 

On 12/11/2019 at 8:54 PM, Estil said:

All the more reason the HK protesters were by far the most qualified.

Hong Kong has gotten a disproportionate amount of media coverage considering there are equally massive protests going on in Chile, Ecuador, Haiti etc..

19 people have been killed in the Chile protests so far, vs 2 in Hong Kong (one was a guy who fell off a bridge)

[m308gunner | 352]

16 hours ago, Sumez said:

She's representing the demand to do something immediately to save the planet, so anyone that criticizes her will look like a fool. Doesn't matter who she is, and she never even claimed to be an expert on anything. She's just out there to make people talk, and at least that part is working. Too bad it brings out all the conspiracy nutjobs, too.

The impetus to do something immediately would imply one is acting without thinking, in which case one would be acting like a fool, almost by definition. The issue verges on inconceivably complex as it touches on virtually every facet of human endeavor and civilization. It's almost cripplingly complex, as one course of action can have cascading consequences for a region, a country, a hemisphere, etc. Yes, I know climate change is having just that effect right now, but how much is one willing to give up in the hope that their sacrifice will make a difference (see China again for a dose of hopelessness).  That being said, there are "smaller" things modern civilizations like the US have done to lower their emissions. But rushing to "do something" is almost certainly going to result in chaos and destruction.

  Please elaborate on "conspiracy nutjobs", as the word conspiracy is currently losing it's effect by being mis-and-overused by a certain elements in our society.  

[m308gunner | 352]

10 hours ago, Californication said:

That is a right wing framing to begin with to say that she is being used. 

Also, you should be more careful when you use the word "all".

  Please expound how suggesting she is being used can be characterized as right wing framing.

[Californication | 1,490]

13 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Please expound how suggesting she is being used can be characterized as right wing framing.

It is right wing framing because that is the talking point across conservative media. 

Here is what a google search finds:

Trump Jr says that Greta Thunberg is being used as a 'marketing gimmick' | indy100
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-jr-greta-thunberg-time-person-year-2019-marketing-gimmick-climate-change-9243701

 

No, Don’t Listen to Greta Thunberg | National Review
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-activist-united-nations/

Putin: Greta Thunberg’s a nice girl but she’s being used by climate change groups | World | The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-greta-thunbergs-a-nice-girl-but-shes-being-used-by-climate-change-groups-fdszcf8z8

To say that she is being used means that she is not speaking because she wants to.

And since it is impossible to read her thought and tell what she wants to do anyone that says she is being used is silly.

Secondly, she has spoken really passionately about why she cares about the environment so if she was lying and doesnt care about the environment, and only speaking because other people want her to, you are pretty much saying she is the greatest actor that has ever lived. 

[CMR | 522]

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to look at where Greta is and feel skeptical that a sixteen year old girl (with autism?) could get there all by herself.  There are some strong hands in the background propping her up IMO.  I won't say she is being used as I certainly believe that she believes in what she is saying, but to me her arguments and speeches sound like juvenile hyperbole.  It's good that she's drawing attention to environmental issues, but unfortunately I don't think it will matter as much in the long run because her arguments are so shallow.  Once her fifteen minutes are up peoples attention will divert to whatever new sensation the media pushes on them.

[m308gunner | 352]

20 minutes ago, Californication said:

It is right wing framing because that is the talking point across conservative media. 

Here is what a google search finds:

Trump Jr says that Greta Thunberg is being used as a 'marketing gimmick' | indy100
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-jr-greta-thunberg-time-person-year-2019-marketing-gimmick-climate-change-9243701

 

No, Don’t Listen to Greta Thunberg | National Review
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-activist-united-nations/

Putin: Greta Thunberg’s a nice girl but she’s being used by climate change groups | World | The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-greta-thunbergs-a-nice-girl-but-shes-being-used-by-climate-change-groups-fdszcf8z8

To say that she is being used means that she is not speaking because she wants to.

And since it is impossible to read her thought and tell what she wants to do anyone that says she is being used is silly.

Secondly, she has spoken really passionately about why she cares about the environment so if she was lying and doesnt care about the environment, and only speaking because other people want her to, you are pretty much saying she is the greatest actor that has ever lived. 

Mmm... to characterize conservative thought as framing seems fishy in and of itself, given that conservatives typically value reason and evidence over feeling and caring (though even that would be a very low resolution picture of the underlying psychology). Perhaps by "framing" you mean "seeing through the lens of X"? If that were the case then I would agree that conservatives fundamentally see through their lens and liberals see through theirs, though to be fair you should probably list three liberal sources and see how they frame Greta.

If you've ever seen her speak on climate issues without a script in hand you might have a different opinion of her. And to say that she is being used has no bearing on her willing participation, since, by your sources, she is being used by conservative-ish media to criticize her statements. She is also, rather willingly, being used by her parents, since they are most likely the ones who coach her and write her speeches.

  It is not silly to point out how liberal groups are lauding her uncritically to push legislation. We don't need to read her thoughts, we can read her words and see the actions of those who support her.

  I think there may be a misunderstanding in the term "using", as I believe some of us understand that as meaning "she is a willing participant whom groups of a certain political bent are treating this way", and some understand that as meaning "she is a mindless puppet". I don't think anyone in this thread really holds to the latter interpretation.

[coffeewithmrsaturn | 100]

40 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

conservatives typically value reason and evidence over feeling and caring

Can you elaborate on that?  It seems so opposite how conservative politicians behave in the Trump era, and I wonder if I may be misunderstanding the claim you're making.

edit:  Just to clarify, I'm criticizing the party leaders, not the people who first elected them.

Edited December 14, 2019 by coffeewithmrsaturn

[JamesRobot | 5,844]

Regardless of political slant either way, Greta herself is apolitical.  No party or politician should lay claim to her message nor blame her for a political stance. 

Although, if she is truly passionate, she should go back to school to learn the actual science piece to research and collaborate with like minds in search of solutions.  Or maybe she should work to enter the political arena when she is age of majority to affect policy change and drive her agenda.  

[Californication | 1,490]

By framing I mean the way an argument is presented.

You are thinking of the word like, they committed a crime and framed somebody for it. That is not what I meant.

Framing is where you set the terms of the conversation. So if you characterize her as being used as if it is a fact, our conversation turns to; are the liberals using her? Instead of: is she right about climate change?

Edited December 14, 2019 by Californication

[Strange | 1,705]

I think she cares less about the “award” than the people who hate her do. That especially includes the jealous deadbeat in the White House who, as expected, threw another embarrassing tantrum about it.

That said, I think she took his whining in stride:

Edited December 14, 2019 by The Strangest

[m308gunner | 352]

11 minutes ago, coffeewithmrsaturn said:

Can you elaborate on that?  It seems so opposite how conservative politicians behave in the Trump era, and I wonder if I may be misunderstanding the claim you're making.

Sure, though to include politicians in the discussion of conservative vs liberal kind of muddies the waters, so I may not touch too much on that particular animal. And my apologies, but I do have to work tomorrow so my time is short.

  So, long story short (or ultra high-res picture to 8-bit graphics), conservatives can generally be characterized as being very concerned with structure/order and maintaining balance, while liberals are concerned with new ideas and stretching boundaries. Conservatives also tend to be more disagreeable while liberals tend to be more agreeable. So if you present a new idea to two people, a conservative and a liberal, the conservative will want to know how it will impact their ordered world ("give me a reason for why we should change what isn't broken") and the liberal will start toying with and implementing the idea ("this could help so many people!"). Both parties play a vital role in keeping a society together, and both have the capacity to kill it. Conservatives could order their world so rigidly that there's no room for growth, resulting in stagnation and death, while liberals could accelerate change to the point where there's no structure to hang on to and society fractures and disintegrates. Again, gross oversimplification, but I've seen this play out too often in the real world to disregard entirely.

[coffeewithmrsaturn | 100]

@m308gunner Thank you for taking the time to dig into that more, and actually the fact that you weren't referring to politicians helps me better understand your point, so thanks for pointing that out in the first paragraph.

[Jono1874 | 144]

On 12/12/2019 at 8:18 AM, CodysGameRoom said:

Trump launches snide attack on Greta Thunberg after she beats him to Time Person of the Year

 

Thoughts?

He's retarded.

 

Hong Kong protesters should have gotten it. Time could have used their platform to point out all the terrible things the CCP are doing. Instead, they awarded it to a person that is already doing a fine job of getting her message out all on her own. When the president of the United States is smack talking you on Twitter, you know you've made it in the big leagues.

[spacepup | 2,421]

Regardless of whether people feel she is more or less deserving of this designation than other individuals or groups (it is a company’s subjective determination after all), I think it is unfortunate that so many have completely discounted and criticized her with unfounded claims and perceived notions of her being completely unable and undeserving of any credit for what she has said or done.

Not everyone has to be a fan, or love her, or think she is great.  But to call her names and completely discount her is very unfair, I believe.

It seems that she is doing what she believes is good.  Rather than channeling the sentiment behind her efforts in positive ways, some choose to ridicule and criticize her.  Did she get here “all on her own?”  I don’t know - heck, I would hope that she has friends and family who also support her and help her spread her message.  But to assume without any true basis that she is being controlled or a puppet to her parents or political groups seems a bit unfounded.  Is it so hard to believe a 16-year old could have something they believe in and want to push for?
 

Anyway, we could argue all day about where people should be focusing their efforts, or what is a “better good,” or who deserves a designation more —- but at the end of the day, people are talking about her and talking about climate change, which I think is a good thing.  Of course we will disagree on what to do about it, if we can do anything about it, how much we have had impact, etc., but I don’t think it’s a bad thing.

[Link | 2,768]

imo

 

[Rooster | 124]

On 12/14/2019 at 2:37 AM, G-type said:

 

Hong Kong has gotten a disproportionate amount of media coverage considering there are equally massive protests going on in Chile, Ecuador, Haiti etc..

19 people have been killed in the Chile protests so far, vs 2 in Hong Kong (one was a guy who fell off a bridge)

To be honest, we can't pretend to have the slightest clue how many protesters have died in Hong Kong, considering how many of them have simply disappeared.  The story of the people of Hong Kong seems to be generally more relatable to western audiences, considering that it was a pretty stable region in comparison with Chile, Ecuador, Haiti, etc.  

[G-type | 2,601]

1 hour ago, Rooster said:

To be honest, we can't pretend to have the slightest clue how many protesters have died in Hong Kong, considering how many of them have simply disappeared.  The story of the people of Hong Kong seems to be generally more relatable to western audiences, considering that it was a pretty stable region in comparison with Chile, Ecuador, Haiti, etc.  

I think the explanation is simpler.. It fits the narrative of "China bad", whereas Chile protests is reaction to the austerity economics of neoliberalism.