Male rage and the words men use to describe Greta Thunberg

Post Reply New Topic

You are being much too rational.
The man-made climate change hysteria, err, I mean "discussion" is meant to have 95% emotionalism and 5% rationality.
If you are not careful, we will have to ask you to leave.


Based on what I have heard, the Noble (Peace) Prize hasn't a high degree of respect these days.
Getting to the point of "cereal box token". <shrug>

I was just going to say that and I really wish the critics would just leave her alone.

Agree on that. I don't have strong feelings either way on climate change tbh, but Greta appears to be a kid with a passion for something who uses her social media pages to discuss it. Just leave her be. Why do some people get themselves so worked up about it all?

^ She's a kid who doesn't want our planet to turn into a hunk of burning garbage. I don't see the problem.

I think I have said this before somewhere: Rational people wouldn't/shouldn't have a problem with Greta.
Rational and mature people, with a degree of life experience, would have a problem with the manipulative mechanism using Greta.

And as I have said elsewhere: A philosophical/political position built on the foundation of hysteria is hardly an argument/discussion worth buying into by reasonable people.
One can't seriously try to reason with unreasonable "individuals".
It is a path to exasperation and disgust.
Believe me,
I know.

But!
On the positive side:
It opens up an avenue for the refining of personal philosophies,
It can be an exercise in critical thinking,
It is another opportunity to study human psychology,
And it provides the enjoyment of mirth at the nonsense of the human animal.

Emotionalism rocks!
Well, maybe not so much.

But what about ME!
I'm a kid, (second childhood) who values the Truth!

I don't know enough about climate change, and the science for and against it , to be a believer or sceptic . I wonder how many though suffer from 'disaster fatigue ' . A product of warnings about disaster
that never came true by the time they were supposed to come true.

As for Greta being manipulated ; where is the proof ? Just saying it's so doesn't make it so . The inane speculation of those on the political right is certainly not enough to give substance to such a belief.

How many years ago has it been now, that Al-you-guys-are-all-schmucks-and-I-am-the-shyster-Gore said the world would end in 12 years time?
16 years?
More?

"There is a sucker born every minute."

I'm good at both, btw.


Where is your reasoning ability?
Given our years of life experience, we should be in a better position to judge what is reasonable and what is BS, surely.
And much better than a 16 year old girl or boy.

Where does Greta get her facts?
Who does she trust?
Is she truly the new messiah with other-worldly insights beyond the Ken and Barby of mere moral 16 year old girls?
I have a couple of brain cells in my head, value the truth beyond partisan politics, am at a mature age with reasonable life experience and I still find the man-made climate debate extremely complicated.
You are not suggesting "politicking", financial gain a-la Al Gore style and power-plays have no part in this entire debacle?

Consider this:

I think it more likely that a young person might fall into this category due to limited life and personal experience.

Also:
To reduce the man-made-climate mass-debate to a black and white binary is ludicrous given the number on intelligent critical thinkers out there still having doubts exactly where the Truth actually lays.

The binary:
Everyone who accepts the man-made-climate change theory is intelligent,
And,
Everyone who is a sceptic in regards to the climate change being exclusively due to man's/woman's interference in the ecological system, is a denier and an imbecile,
Is in itself imbecilic, imo.

And one must also consider the ramification on the economies of the world which support social security, disability welfare, old-age pensions.
If you want horrendous misery unleashed unto the world, open Pandora's box of binaries.

Also, consider:
The three main contributors of plant food, err, I mean CO2, are not involved in meaningful carbon emission reduction.
How much of a putz do the smaller players have to be to virtue-signal with no possibility of "saving the world" when the main offenders are recalcitrant?

The entire premise/practicality is ludicrous,
Because humanity/huwomanity is ludicrous.

There's a difference between whether something is reasonable or not , and whether someone is being manipulated to say that 'unreasonable' thing .

As for the Dunning-Kruger effect - It doesn't work on a "You're 16 and I'm 60, and therefore you're going to overestimate your intelligence more" basis.

I don't think all climate change sceptics are stupid, but I do think those who choose to attack a 16 year old girl rather than give a reasoned response as to why she is wrong are showing themselves to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic .

A lot of people have made a lot of money out of fossil fuels.
(And I'd be willing to bet many of them are middle-aged white males).
For them, Greta's message is personal - it threatens their self-image as essentially "good people".

I don't see how it should threaten that image. If all the fossil fuel energy providers were to declare "For the planet!" And cease energy production, you'd have a global catastrophe with a death toll to make World War 2 look like a walk in the park.

It's not their job to create the rules and regulations on energy production and nor should it be. As long as they follow those rules, then they're good people. And if they're doing things like misrepresenting reality to fool climate science, doctoring their paperwork so they only appear to be following the rules and breaking the law in the shadows, then surely they already lost any self-image of being good people.

There's nothing wrong with your logic, yet my impression is that many "well-established" people are taking Greta's message personally. That's why we're seeing those sort of kick-back reactions towards her.
People who have profited from fossil fuels may not have been responsible for policy / governance but that doesn't mean they're not feeling themselves under attack. Kind of like football supporters getting abusive when people criticise their team.

PUPPET

Her parents hold the strings.

Google them, google who her PR company is, who her mother's friends are in the press.

Seek and ye shall find, if we tell you then you will call us right wing nazis or other such nonsense.

Do your own f*****g research and stop lining up to proclaim the new messiah.

Maybe this is somewhere here, but I read about the schoolteacher who got suspended for a " I don't have my sniper rifle " or similar comment about her.

I read the same yesterday. Why would you talk about shooting someone you don't like?

Personally, I don’t care. I hold to the adage “Children should be seen and not heard.” (This coming from someone who was routinely ignored growing up, except when I would make a very minor infraction, then all hell would break loose!)