Was that the one off Argentina? Had forgotten about that - could’ve put it in my post! More evidence it’s the uncertainty that drives public engagement.
I don’t think it was even that it was rich people.
We recently had the mystery disappearance of Nicola Bulley in the UK that got huge media attention because everyone was playing detective; we’ve had similar media frenzy over the Chilean miners, the Thai footballers in the cave, the RAF lad who disappeared on a night out (it’s thought he climbed into an industrial bin)…
The common thread is that everyone can speculate on whether the subjects will survive or not. ‘Migrant boats sinks’ stories are focused on too many nameless people and the outcome is too easily predicted for a media frenzy and workplace discussions. People love a bit of speculation.
I’m a little confused by the news of US supplying cluster munitions to UA.
I admittedly haven’t yet had much of a chance to look too deeply into it, but I’m sure one spokes person specifically mentioned that the previous concerns about dud rates aren’t a worry anymore as they’re able to reduce it down to 2%.
But the US has recently passed the bill to ban their usage by their own forces unless they were less than 1%. Which has effectively banned the use of them because arms companies admitted that they would be unable to guarantee that with current technologies.
In the meantime the US are destroying their stockpiles as they’re anywhere from 5 - 15%.
So where are they getting these 2% dud rate munitions from?
I know there has been talks of supplying some of the current stockpile that has been flagged for destruction for use to drop from drones. Basically taking the individual clusters and putting them into a little aero bomblet sleeve thing.
I have mixed feeling about the usage of them, purely due to the dud rates, but honestly as far as Ukraine are concerned, they’re in a total war for survival and they should be able to use any tool available to them (excluding NBC). And I trust them to be used only in the appropriate places, and that areas will be sufficiently cleared prior to civilian access.
You can hope, but try and convince the guy in my discord who never fails to bring up Ukrainian war crimes and is outraged that more cluster munitions should be supplied to them.
But he’s totally not a Russian sympathiser, bro. Sorry, need to vent somewhere about his stupid takes. They’re flat out impossible to discuss anything with if you have a different perspective or opinion.
Yeah, everyone discourages them, even us. Just only use them for that one thing that only they can really do to save Ukrainian lives.
When a cluster munition bursts over a trench system, (or any other really rugged terrain for that matter) some of the smaller submunitions inevitably fall into the trench, significantly reducing its effectiveness as cover from the bombardment. This capability of sudden, wide-area impact cannot be easily replicated.
There aren’t many good “counters” for dug-in infantry. This is one of them, that’s all. It saves Ukrainian lives today. Though if any accidentally unexploded submunitions are not cleaned up with great care, it can come at the cost of innocent Ukrainian lives tomorrow. That’s the only issue.
It’s all for publicity. You should post the videos where the police are being all nice and chatting her up and taking selfies with her before carrying her away at the last protest. News outlets only posted the videos of her being carried away. Other outlets leaked the before images of her posing for pictures and smiles with the cops. It’s all bullshit.
Because it highlights it internationally and brings more attention than if they didn’t. Attacking/protesting the corporations which are most responsible for the situation we’re in has shifted public consciousness to understanding.
The context is that it’s being built on indigenous land which they use for herding. So it’s not perfect, for their side, but it’s definitely not “Greta is against wind power”
Wind farms are commonly installed on farm land as well as land used to herd animals. So explain to me why THIS land is any different? It’s not. But she was bafflingly protesting against it.
“it’s not” shows that the person has already made their mind up and done their reading, so I’m not particularly bothered about engaging people like this as they are not actually interested and are just trying to derail in bad faith.
“It’s not” shows that the person has already made up their mind
It shows that they currently disagree with you.
are just trying to derail
Well yeah, a genuine conversation can go anywhere, unlike something on rails which is bound for a single destination. IMO someone who thinks a conversation should behave like a train and follow a predetermined path is missing out on what conversations actually are.
Another way to say “trying to derail” could be “trying to make it go a different direction”.
That’s conflict. That’s when two people have different ideas. Just because they use sarcasm or rhetorical questions doesn’t mean they’re bad actors. Just because they’re mocking your point of view doesn’t mean they’re bad actors.
No, they answered their own question, they are settled and unwilling to discuss. The upvotes on my post show how the consensus is that they are engaging in bad faith. Don’t encourage it.
Well because the wind farms are destroying Sami land? And other alternative placements exist for the wind farms, but not for the reindeer the Sami hunt. Agree or not, but it’s not because she’s protesting the concept of wind farms in Norway.
To be more blunt, the comment was an outright mischaracterization, and if not out of ignorance, then a pure lie. Typical bullshit used to discredit people offhand.
Look, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here in assuming you’re asking that question honestly and not trying to start a debate about whether or not this dishonest nature of the comment constitutes a lie.
So why was she protesting the building of a wind farm a few weeks ago?
I find it funny how her protesting something hugely beneficial was met with general silence.
The comment is set up to try and make Greta appear hypocritical. She’s supposed to be an environmentalist and she’s protesting wind farms? The comment goes on to extrapolate that to the entire environmentalist community being hypocrites because the protest “was met with general silence”.
What it leaves out is the context of the protest, which had absolutely nothing to do with the windmill, but rather the development of land use by peoples who don’t have the political power to prevent it.
It’s akin to you protesting a children’s hospital being put in your backyard and then being accused of hating sick children.
In other comments, OP says “I work in the industry and windmills aren’t a problem”, blah, blah, blah. This purposely misses the point that the problem is development of these people’s land against their will, whether it be a windmill or a Walmart. You can be an environmentalist who is pro windfarm and still have an issue with exploiting people, even if that exploitation is to put up wind farms.
How are wind farms “destroying Sami land”? Please fill me in.
Full disclosure, I work in the industry so I would LOVE to know how a wind turbine tower which at it’s base is typically no more than 5 m in diameter (15’) is destroying anything when wind farms are commonly installed on farm land with essentially no disruption to the field and it’s use to grow food.
This is just a guess, but could the vibrations / low frequency sound be bad for / drive away animals they hunt? I know my community has rebuffed attempts at an offshore one for those reasons and the effect on our fisheries. (I understand sound propagation through water is quite a different beast, but thats my conjecture)
I feel like you guys don’t understand how the laws work in sweden, you can’t just pick and choose who you charge (I expect that it’s like that in any non-corrupt country)
Even in relatively corruption-free countries, there are often shadow mechanisms the governments uses to decide who they charge with a crime.
Prosecutors can just say they don’t have a case, or they can fumble the case purposefully in the initial stages to give credence to the “no case” idea.
We don’t have to look any further than how police charge themselves to see how the laws don’t fairly apply to everyone. And a simple google search will reveal that Sweden is not immune to police corruption, which shouldn’t surprise anyone.
“Disobeying police orders”, which is what Thunberg was charged with, is one of those catch-all laws that are purposefully vague in a way that allows police total discretion over how to enforce it.
I guarantee in this case that calls were made all the way up the top of the Swedish government before police decided what to do here.
Basically, my point is that there are so many strings to pull, even in developed countries, that it’s often possible to suss out the motivations of the administration just by examining how charges proceed.
What this says about Thunberg getting charged for her actions? Probably nothing significant. Sweden cannot allow activists to freely disrupt their economic infrastructure, especially those involving energy. So they charge her as “normal” regardless of her celebrity status. Though they will be very careful to do everything by the book with so many eyes on the case.
You talking about the same government that allowed two different people to burn the Quran, one Infront of the Turkish embassy, while being blocked by turkey to join Nato? I don’t think you guys understand, sure there is corruption in Swedish politics, but if any of them tried to influence the rule of law? They’d be unbelievably fucked
Absolutely amazing. For those who say are saying that it was too extremist of a position, I’d say fuck off. She is doing what we all need to be doing. Oil companies and governments aren’t going to help us out of the climate catastrophe that is coming. They simply aren’t. Capitalism will not allow it. This is the only option we have left.
Well, that’s assuming they get to keep their money. My preference would be that we need to start taking it, but that likely won’t happen. They won’t help out of good will, but hopefully we can make them help by force.
Something that intrigued me was how Martin Luther King managed to do so much through nonviolent protest. Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat and the bus boycotts made people realize how absurd and unfair Jim Crow laws were.
He even participated in a sit in at a department store and was arrested for it. People were getting arrested in such numbers for such simple things it made people think about what King and his followers were trying to do.
I have no doubts that Ms. Thunberg has good intentions, but her protests are simply ineffective. In this case, “blockading” an oil port just frustrates people for delaying a crucial product.
I don’t know, man. I’m not saying it was the best thing that could’ve been done, but at least she’s actually trying to get us to stop cooking ourselves. It wasn’t like she went full blown eco terrorist.
Fair point, it isn’t the worst either. The thing I see though is people shouting over one another trying to push their agenda (noble or not) and all it does is make people more polarized. Just look at the comments on this post.
There are other problems in addition to global warming. The scientific reports I’ve heard of conclude that this is not a civilization killer. It’s a serious problem, but it’s not at the 100% serious level that it’s portrayed at.
And that 100% serious level is not a place you want to be, in terms of responses, if your responses might cause other problems that could reach the 100% serious level.
Like nuclear war. Nuclear war is a real possibility, and it’s something to avoid at all costs. It would be worse than global warming’s projected effects.
So if we cause a nuclear war by taking actions to avoid climate change, we fucked up and killed ourselves by overreacting.
I’m not saying it’s likely. I’m just giving some context into how the major changes being proposed scare some people. A lot of people see the economy and the power structures of the world and all of our fossil-fuel burning industry as a delicate system that is keeping us all fed enough to not be starting wars. Some people are more worried about fucking with that system than they are about climate change.
An analogy would be if you were in a little shack in the wilderness, in the bitter cold winter, and you had a heater that was producing noxious fumes like carbon monoxide.
It’s a really fucking serious problem to have th carbon monoxide in your air. So you’re like “let’s shut off the heater and replace it with blankets”. But if the blankets aren’t effective enough, you freeze to death.
Another analogy would be facing a man-eating tiger while there’s a minefield behind you. Two dangers. And someone who only sees tiger will be like “what the hell are you doing?? This is life or death! Get away from that tiger!” but there’s a legit worry about that minefield too.
Global warming is a new enemy of humanity. But we have to be careful that we don’t resurrect the old enemies of humanity while we’re fighting global warming: famine, war, disease, etc.
Another analogy: human culture is a gigantic codebase that somehow runs. The code was written by developers who aren’t here any more. There’s very little documentation. And this program is running and providing us with food and peace. Mucking about in the code, even for very good reasons, could disrupt existing features that we rely on heavily.
Do you have any fucking idea how the civil rights protests worked? Do you think MLK just asked everyone nicely to give black people rights pretty please? MLK did the exact same kind of thing as Greta, so don’t even fucking pretend you give half a shit about MLK when you’re making it crystal clear that you don’t know a goddamn thing about his methods or beliefs. You wanna know what MLK actually thought about violent protests? In his own words: “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
I hate how often people like you use MLK to hide behind while misinterpreting him and ignoring everything he actually stood for.
It’s frustrating when people think talking down to others is going to change minds. It’s no wonder progressive activists fail to make progress.
If you expect people with different perspectives to get behind people like Greta you’ll want to adopt a better strategy. Otherwise, you’ll continue to polarize folks.
Human activity and wealth flows like water: through the path of least resistance. You can’t affect change unless and until it is easier not to use oil than it is to use it.
The only thing better than Greta’s commitment to fighting against climate change, is seeing how much she pisses off old rich men. One day I’m going to make a shirt that says “Your girlfriend would rather fuck Greta” just to watch them seethe even harder.
Right, because i dont have the same views about what to do, I’m in the same boat as the fucking oil mafia? And you people wonder why republicans and right wing views get so much approval and the left doesn’t get shit done? God, this world is really beyond fucked.
Because some right wing rag told him Greta bad. These people are total shills lol. Imagine defending oil corps who wouldn’t hesitate fucking you over for a dime.
How about you just fuck off with your baseless accusations. Nobody tells me what to think, especially not right-wing armchair farts who don’t have a clue about tooting and blowing. Both extremist views are absolute junk and have no place in a civilized world and that’s exactly why Greta (and the same, it’s not just her) gets on my nerves so much.
She cares about the environment man! And and she like, stood in front of an oil port!! I can’t think of anything more extreme leftist terrorist than that
To know as much about something as the man in the moon
As to her extremist and disagreeable views, now, I haven’t collaborated this properly but have it on very good authority that she prefers vanilla over chocolate pudding. What a monster.
Wahrscheinlich nicht - ist mir aber ehrlich gesagt auch Egal, weil es am Ende eh nix bringt. Sobald man bei dem Thema ne andere Meinung hat, ist man eh unten durch. Aber, weil ich ja eig. verständigungswillig bin…hier die Erklärung:
Yes, i care: I’ve said it in another post, the fact that she (and pretty much everyone else that applauded her) want’s to basically stop living life, without proposing or advocating how to do it better or rather using her Plattform to advocate real change without completely demolishing “life” irks me. To quote the other post:
Because I do not agree with the methods and also the basic goal. Basically, just telling everyone to stop living isn’t going to do shit in terms of change. You have to give people a perspective to rally behind the cause - I support the cause, but neither the goal of going cold turkey on fossils from tomorrow morning, nor do I support the way they go about that.
The issue is: The extremist positions are doing more harm than any good, it’s one of the reasons the AfD got so big in the last few months and neither the Greens nor any other party seem to understand that all they are doing is playing in to the hands of those right wing extremist positions. It infuriates me beyond comparison and makes me actually mad.
And “the other side” just get’s foam around their mouth (wahrscheinlich noch was, was man anders übersetzen müsste, ich bin aber gerade zu verärgert um das ordentlich zu tun - sorry) and put’s you in to the same corner. Which is not only absolutely stupid, it also damages Democracy, Free Speech and also our society - probably on the same level as Climate Change itself, because in the end, does it matter if we bash our heads in because of climate change (no water, no food) or because we disagree? Both things can be avoided.
The popularity of the AFD is not the fault of the people actually trying to make things a tiny bit better. It’s thanks to right wing media and politics (CxU) continuously slandering them after complete failure to improve things even the tiniest bit during their time in power.
Even the most mild and harmless change to somewhat reduce the apocalyptic global warming we’re creating is fought tooth and nail by the right wing.
You’re argument makes as much sense as the people saying gay people are making things worse by forcing their gayness down everyone’s throat. No, right wing people don’t want to do anything about climate change and want LGBT people not to exist.
From what I gather, blocking an oil port is extremist and doesn’t actually do anything but make life more difficult for the general population.
From that perspective I can agree with him. Blockading an oil port is an extreme approach to combating climate change. More sensible approaches would be figuring out how to lobby governments to tax fossil fuels and use that money to support renewable resources.
And people didn’t think Trump had a shot back in 2016.
I live in a town that’s split down the middle politically and I still see people flying Trump flags even after all the bs he has done. We even had a council member denounce pride month back in June at a council meeting. They think they are fighting the good fight.
Anyway, my point is that there are people who will see what Greta is doing, even if it benefits them, and still fight it because they think their side has their back.
Because I do not agree with the methods and also the basic goal. Basically, just telling everyone to stop living isn’t going to do shit in terms of change. You have to give people a perspective to rally behind the cause - I support the cause, but neither the goal of going cold turkey on fossils from tomorrow morning, nor do I support the way they go about that.
It’s funny how you never reply whenever people actually try to ask you what you think is extremist about Greta and her methods/views. Something tells me you’ve just been told she’s extremist by some bad faith actor and you’re just repeating that without enacting any actual critical thought about it.
Her goal is to stop or at least significantly reduce climate change - which is a goal i support. One thing i would appreciate greatly is to actually use her platform and tell people about how many different things there are that every single one can do, to actually reduce the climate impact, without having to change much in their daily live and even their hobbies. For example, those people that invest heavily in to fossile fuel companies with their own private money should look in to investing it somewhere else (and i do actually know a lot of people - not that wealthy - that do exactly that), “vote” with their pockets and actually pay attention what they are buying (like, are you buying your avocados from the other side of the globe, or maybe from sustainable greenhouses that exist all around Europe? Do you really need the latest iPhone 2500X?), support green hydrogen initiatives and companies that do something with Alge to reduce the souring in the oceans and so on - there are COUNTLESS efforts underway that ACTUALLY are going to change things WITHOUT having to deal with all the animosity and bad blood.
Ah good old oil company propaganda where it’s every single individual’s responsibility to fix climate change.
You’re incredibly naive if you think we can solve climate change with your wishful thinking instead of political action to regulate production, circularize the economy, build cities that don’t make you need to drive a car if you want to get anywhere, etc etc etc.
There’s no such thing as fixing a systemic issue without animosity with the people who profit from said system.
One thing i would appreciate greatly is to actually use her platform and tell people about how many different things there are that every single one can do, to actually reduce the climate impact, without having to change much in their daily live and even their hobbies.
You want the path of least resistance, which it is too late for. She has suggested a lot of things previously.
No, of course i do not disagree with stopping climate change (well, actually, i do, because the term “stopping climate change” is wrong, climate change is something that happens naturally and continuously, stopping the man made acceleration of climate change is the correct thing)
I agree she is obnoxious and that famous speech at the UN is so cringe it’s hard for me to watch. I also agree with the message overall, and I’m pretty much a single issue voter now on climate change. Blockading an oil port (?) isn’t the way to go about it though. We need to make alternatives better, cheaper, and more affordable than oil. That’s the only way to get people to change. That’s the only way to change things on a massive scale.
All the downvotes against you are dismaying. I think people hear ‘Greta bad’ and assume you enjoy dumping oil in the arctic and killing baby seals as your weekend hobby. It would be cool if we could discuss these things without going straight to each other’s throats.
I agree she is obnoxious and that famous speech at the UN is so cringe it’s hard for me to watch. I also agree with the message overall, and I’m pretty much a single issue voter now on climate change. Blockading an oil port (?) isn’t the way to go about it though. We need to make alternatives better, cheaper, and more affordable than oil. That’s the only way to get people to change. That’s the only way to change things on a massive scale.
That’s pretty much one of my points as well. There are also other things that can and have to be done, we’ve fucked up pretty royally and need to be doing stuff ASAP - but not through force. We need everyone to do it and we can’t afford the different “camps”.
All the downvotes against you are dismaying. I think people hear ‘Greta bad’ and assume you enjoy dumping oil in the arctic and killing baby seals as your weekend hobby. It would be cool if we could discuss these things without going straight to each other’s throats.
Pretty much, yeah. I’m by no means right on everything and some ideas are stupid (still, they should be done to get everyone on board), but no discussions i one of the biggest issues we have in our societies right now.
And now here we both are now sitting at “scores” below zero. I was really hoping Lemmy wouldn’t bring reddit’s rabid overzealous hateful groupthink with it. It would be really nice if we could discuss this like adults but no, I guess we should go fuck off and die instead.
What’s that line from big lebowski, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole? I think that applies to greta and other so-called climate activists. Sitting in the road blocking people from getting to work isn’t going to win the hearts and minds. Blocking oil tankers isn’t going to stop people, businesses, governments, etc from using oil. It’s just super childish and naive to think otherwise.
Dude human race is a danger to the environment and we are going kill life on this planet. So asking us to not live to save the environment would be spot on.
I believe that is the truly only way to save the environment.
But to your point of living our lives like normal. You keep doing that right up until were fucked I am sure future generations will appreciate you for all the "nothing " you did to combate climate change. When our grandkids (supposing you have kids) are fighting wars over water I’m sure they will look back on you fondly knowing that you kept up the good fight of enjoying the overabundance of food and water.
And you kept driving gas power cars and just enjoy life. Because god forbid anyone inconvenience you our the world over climate change.
How about instead of bitching about the girl who at least is fighting for her future and future generations you join the fight instead.
Do that our shut the fuck up no one interested in your complaining.
The main character kid judged his mentor “with the sanctimonious only a youth can muster while decrying the faults of their elders.”
I think of that line often. That’s what comes to mind when watching that infamous speech of hers at the UN. It’s just so cringe and hard to watch. I agree with the message, but the delivery, oof…
The hell? What kind of fucked up world view does one need to have, to jump to that conclusion, just because I don’t agree with the methods Great and her cult use? That’s on the same level of stupid as telling Ukraine they have to negotiate with Russia at all costs.
You apparently don’t, because there are countless scientists who deliver alternatives, so we don’t have to strip ourself from enjoying life in every possible way.
If you read into his other posts he is saying her approach of blocking people from living their lives is ineffective. It is like protesting something by blocking off a highway people need to use to make a living.
At this point who notices protests? They are so commonplace unless tens of thousands of people are involved. I agree that this will catch the public eye and may motivate people to side with her, but it could have the opposite effect as well. People rely on fossil fuels to get through their day (e.g. commuting, heating their homes, electric generation even). Making it more expensive may frustrate people who are more concerned about making ends meet than the climate.
It sucks, but there are limits to how practical it is to disrupt a crucial resource.
Though if I had to guess, it’s going to be stuff like “build a shit ton of nuclear power plants, use e fuels for cars, use green hydrogen, develop fusion power, and generally do all the things that allow us to believe that we have to change absolutely nothing in our lives.”
these countless scientists (accounting for less than 2% of the scientific community), are they in the room with us right now?
Also Greta doesn’t control literally anyone, doesn’t require unwavering devotion and most importantly it is not a spiritual belief that human-made climate change is a thing. In fact it’s a well established fact by now.
Because 1 moron screaming that the sky is green does not make the sky green just because he’s “providing an alternative” to what the other 99 people are saying after looking up at the sky and seeing it is blue. Scientists are also not telling people to repent, they’re telling people there needs to be a system change and they’re also telling politicians that they need to enact policies to contrast climate change, and the same is what activists ask for. You’d know if you spent some time looking at what they say rather than what the media says about them.
You know who actually is both telling people to repent for their own emissions and also spreading misinformation about climate change and financing those “alternative science”? Oil companies. I wonder why.
She’s charged basically for not leaving a the premises when told by police, she’ll likely receive a fine.
She’ll be alright and will get a chance to argue in court, a new platform one might even argue. I don’t think this is anything to get rallied up or worried about, civil disobedience works sometimes
And this isn’t the first time. A lot of climate activists (and I assume Greta included) love these non-compliance fines, since it’s basically advertising for them
bbc.co.uk
Newest