Fridays for Future

[Kernen]

What about my policy of knowing the risks but giving zero shits?

That one's outright evil.

People say evil like its a bad thing.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Protests started off the entire saga of the United States of America, don't you forget that. Being "obnoxious" against repressive regimes or out of touch elites is not only good, but it's neccessary to provoke its fall. After all, you aren't gonna get shit if you just kindly ask politicians to pass something that benefits your community, because 99.9% of the time, they aren't going to listen.

I'd probably have been a Loyalist in 1776. My schadenfreude exceeds my thirst for liberty.

And probably be hung like Benedict Arnold for loyalty to the crown. Or evacuated to the UK if you are exceptionally lucky.

[Liriena]

-snip-

You referenced "boomerisms" yet again in your post. How old do you think I am?

Boomer is not an age. It's a mindset, an ideology.

The reason this is catching on around the world is because influential people (world leaders, news outlets) are GIVING her an audience. That's how things catch on: somebody notices them, and then spreads it around, and they continue to spread from there. Every trend and every meme that has ever happened involves this same basic principle in one way or another.

So? Yeah, that's how hegemony works: it always tends to assimilate its own resistances. That doesn't mean those resistances are illegitimate, lack agency or cannot lead to substantial change.

For the record, I have listened to Thunberg's speech. It contained little new information that I haven't been hearing for at least a decade, other than the whole "you guys wrecked my life waaaa" part.

You already being acquainted with the information she provided is not her problem. Maybe you are not her target audience.

And your argument is that I can't even mention Nixon for the sole reason that he's dead?

No. My argument is that using him as a counter-example to Thunberg is not very useful and it's not necessarily correct either. Nixon is not alive today to derive conclusions and policy from our current context with our current information. His idea to rely on nuclear power was good and probably still valid, but as a point of comparison to Thunberg you can't just claim that "he had a much better grasp of what was going on" when he and Thunberg are not living in the same contexts or with the same information at hand... and you can't just dismiss her as an "entitled rich 16-year-old" on that basis. Her being entitled, rich and/or young has nothing to do with whether she's capable of understanding climate change today as well or even better than Nixon, nor does it make her lesser than Nixon in general, given that Nixon himself was certainly not a working class man nor particularly selfless, and being old is not a virtue in and of itself.

Your argument would be much improved if you refrained from constantly trying to frame Thunberg in derogatory terms and acting like that's a legitimate part of your argument.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That one's outright evil.

People say evil like its a bad thing.

Evil is not bad, it is both liberating and desireable.

[Liriena]

That one's outright evil.

People say evil like its a bad thing.

[insert edgy Joker memes]

[Kernen]

I'd probably have been a Loyalist in 1776. My schadenfreude exceeds my thirst for liberty.

And probably be hung like Benedict Arnold for loyalty to the crown. Or evacuated to the UK if you are exceptionally lucky.

Maybe. Maybe not. That's not a reason to like protesters.

People say evil like its a bad thing.

[insert edgy Joker memes]

Fuck no. The Joker is chaotic evil. There's no virtue in chaos.

[Valrifell]

That one's outright evil.

People say evil like its a bad thing.

You... you know what words mean, ya?

[Kernen]

People say evil like its a bad thing.

You... you know what words mean, ya?

No. I'm communicating via text, but I'm basically illiterate.

[Grenartia]

But is it really an exaggeration? Had some kid during the Cold War given a speech before the UN about nuclear war during a time when it seemed most inevitable (say, either 1962 or 1983), and had used a similar line, would you call that an exaggeration?

Considering the bomb didnt get dropped anywhere, yes.

Hindsight is 20/20. We're talking about from the perspective of living as a person at the same time, without the benefit of hindsight.

Look, I get it. You're a boomer and you probably think you'll be dead before it "gets really bad", but that's just a "fuck you got mine" attitude with extra steps, and as someone who will likely be alive when it starts getting really bad, I refuse to let your denial of your own culpability fuck me and those who come after me over.

And so, finally, the climate change denier discourse surrounding Thunberg reached the place it was always meant to reach...

(Image)
(Image)

The whole situation doesn't sit well with me, including just how much airtime Thunberg is getting. She likes to throw tantrums over climate change. So what? People are giving her the exact thing she wants: attention, and I'm not convinced by her pity-party speech the other day either. Yes, climate change is a problem. No, we're not all gonna be dead from it within my lifetime. Yes, we need to start switching to renewable energy sources and get a couple of checks on our unabashed hedonism. No, the solution is not to throw temper tantrums about it, nor is it to ban everything that doesn't jibe 100% with the politically correct leftist agenda, nor is it to continue merely to talk as opposed to acting on small and large scales. As Novus America points out, Richard Nixon had the idea of getting us on nuclear power and thus almost completely eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels by 1980. That was over 30 years ago and maintaining the status quo has only made things worse; maybe we should have listened to the man. He had a much better grasp of what was going on than any entitled rich 16-year-old.

This is a fundamentally incoherent take. The "temper tantrums" are the only way to motivate the rest of society into taking the immediate action required to avoid the worst of climate change. And lamenting about how "we shoulda listened to Nixon about nuclear", as correct as it is, is simply an exercise in armchair policy making and circlejerking. I say that as someone who fully realizes that full decarbonization can only be achieved through full nuclearization. Yes, Nixon was a stopped clock on this subject. But if you're not going to do anything but finger-wag at "temper tantrums" and wax nostalgic about Nixon's ideas on energy policy, without doing anything to get the ball rolling on immediate action, you're not really contributing to solving the problem, and are in fact actively hindering the people who are.

[Ghost Land]

-snip-

First, the Baby Boomers are actually the only legitimately defined "generation" there is in the United States. The Baby Boomers were born from 1946 through 1964, and let me assure you that I wasn't even a thought in 1964. Probably not even 1984.

Maybe I'm not part of Thunberg's target audience. I do, however, reserve the right to have my own opinions about people and ideologies, even if said opinions are negative. If you actually look up who Greta Thunberg is, you will find that she made her own mom give up her opera singing career because "flying bad". Never mind that there are many much larger contributors to pollution than air traffic; all this goes to show is that she's clearly skilled at manipulating people. Referring to autism as a "superpower" also sounds like something one would tell a child so that he or she doesn't feel bad about the condition. I know you guys are going to flame me to high heck for making these comments, but this is how I feel.* And for the record, I'm not going to give up eating animal products; bison is tasty, and so are chicken wings. Here's another one: industrial activity and automobiles predate the lives of any living person on this planet. The current generations of living adults cannot be blamed entirely for the climate change problem.

I don't think her message is 100% wrong. I do recognize that climate change is a problem, and I'm sick of how little people care, even in countries like Sweden that a lot of liberals like to champion as perfect model societies. I do, however, have the right to disagree with her, dislike her as a person, and think her targets are a little out of reach as things stand right now. I'd like to do more to reduce pollution myself, but I don't appreciate being guilt-tripped for living within a modern First World society in 2019. I never thought I'd be agreeing with a French politician, but Brune Poirson said it quite well: you can't mobilize with despair, even hate.

*My school district said I was autistic for YEARS, and kids picked on me for it, so I have ample experience with the condition and how it affects people. I have never been officially diagnosed, though I will admit I am quite eccentric and may come across as such, and having that label slapped on me, I had frequent interaction with a lot of autistic people, across the whole spectrum of functioning ability.

-snip-

This is a fundamentally incoherent take. The "temper tantrums" are the only way to motivate the rest of society into taking the immediate action required to avoid the worst of climate change. And lamenting about how "we shoulda listened to Nixon about nuclear", as correct as it is, is simply an exercise in armchair policy making and circlejerking. I say that as someone who fully realizes that full decarbonization can only be achieved through full nuclearization. Yes, Nixon was a stopped clock on this subject. But if you're not going to do anything but finger-wag at "temper tantrums" and wax nostalgic about Nixon's ideas on energy policy, without doing anything to get the ball rolling on immediate action, you're not really contributing to solving the problem, and are in fact actively hindering the people who are.

You're picking on the tone of my comments while agreeing with the pro-nuclearization sentiment. I'm not hindering any solving of this problem whatsoever. I'm just pointing out that Nixon WAS right, and there's no reason we shouldn't have taken his advice back then, and there's even LESS reason not to convert to nuclear power now, 40 years and oodles more environmental damage later. It's impossible to wax nostalgic about a time period I wasn't even alive for. I don't appreciate being accused of "armchair policy making and circlejerking" just because you disagree with me. I just also realise that if we banned airplanes and imposed veganism on everyone, rather than work to make air traffic and agriculture more sustainable, our economy is going to go down the crapper, and I'd like to live in a country with a good economy as opposed to one where the economy is being destroyed by the government being more interested in merely reacting as opposed to being proactive.

I don't think climate change is going to cause the world to end in my lifetime. I do think we can and should work to reduce and, as much as possible, reverse its negative effects (though sadly, the species we've driven to extinction aren't coming back). At the same time, I do reserve the right to dislike particular people and disagree with their proposed solutions, and I also reserve the right to express my beliefs on this forum without getting flamed and responded to with arguments right toward the bottom of the argument pyramid.

Also, do we really need TWO Thunberg threads?

[Nakena]

Boomer is not an age. It's a mindset, an ideology.

How so?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Eh, if some people want to do this and makes them feel like they are accomplishing something, I say let them. I think Greta Thunberg cares. I don't know that that the greater interests care enough to do anything, but I don't doubt she does care. Whether we can stop the change or not, I can't say. However, I do think we should still do something about the current state of our environment. At a personal level.

[Novus America]

Considering the bomb didnt get dropped anywhere, yes.

Hindsight is 20/20. We're talking about from the perspective of living as a person at the same time, without the benefit of hindsight.

Look, I get it. You're a boomer and you probably think you'll be dead before it "gets really bad", but that's just a "fuck you got mine" attitude with extra steps, and as someone who will likely be alive when it starts getting really bad, I refuse to let your denial of your own culpability fuck me and those who come after me over.

The whole situation doesn't sit well with me, including just how much airtime Thunberg is getting. She likes to throw tantrums over climate change. So what? People are giving her the exact thing she wants: attention, and I'm not convinced by her pity-party speech the other day either. Yes, climate change is a problem. No, we're not all gonna be dead from it within my lifetime. Yes, we need to start switching to renewable energy sources and get a couple of checks on our unabashed hedonism. No, the solution is not to throw temper tantrums about it, nor is it to ban everything that doesn't jibe 100% with the politically correct leftist agenda, nor is it to continue merely to talk as opposed to acting on small and large scales. As Novus America points out, Richard Nixon had the idea of getting us on nuclear power and thus almost completely eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels by 1980. That was over 30 years ago and maintaining the status quo has only made things worse; maybe we should have listened to the man. He had a much better grasp of what was going on than any entitled rich 16-year-old.

This is a fundamentally incoherent take. The "temper tantrums" are the only way to motivate the rest of society into taking the immediate action required to avoid the worst of climate change. And lamenting about how "we shoulda listened to Nixon about nuclear", as correct as it is, is simply an exercise in armchair policy making and circlejerking. I say that as someone who fully realizes that full decarbonization can only be achieved through full nuclearization. Yes, Nixon was a stopped clock on this subject. But if you're not going to do anything but finger-wag at "temper tantrums" and wax nostalgic about Nixon's ideas on energy policy, without doing anything to get the ball rolling on immediate action, you're not really contributing to solving the problem, and are in fact actively hindering the people who are.

But only if we advocate nuclear, and use effective methods to do it. Unfortunately most the type out protesting tend to oppose nuclear. The issue is the people protesting are generally right about the disease, but wrong about the cure.

[Novus America]

And probably be hung like Benedict Arnold for loyalty to the crown. Or evacuated to the UK if you are exceptionally lucky.

Maybe. Maybe not. That's not a reason to like protesters.

[insert edgy Joker memes]

Fuck no. The Joker is chaotic evil. There's no virtue in chaos.

Can we do a Palpatine meme instead then?

[Kernen]

Maybe. Maybe not. That's not a reason to like protesters.




Fuck no. The Joker is chaotic evil. There's no virtue in chaos.

Can we do a Palpatine meme instead then?

Much more tolerable.

[Costa Fierro]

170,000 people attended climate protests across New Zealand today, the second largest in the country's history after 300,000 attended a general strike in 1979. At least 40,000 attended the march on Parliament in Wellington. That figure alone is the same size of the nationwide protests against mining on conservation land in 2010.

[Imperium of Dragonia]

Oh look, more virtue signalling that everyone will forget about in a week. How cute.

[Kowani]

Oh look, more virtue signalling that everyone will forget about in a week. How cute.

These protests have been going on for months.

[Nolo gap]

governments could do in a week, one simple thing, that has yet to happen since the furst earth days in the 70s.
simply cold turkey subsidies to fossil fuels. instead we have all these schemes, to soften the blow to the poof corporations. for what?

clean alternatives have reached the point now where they've proven competitive, so let them have at least a level playing field on which to do so.
fossil fuel subsidies only exist because the industry controls the governments that give them to themselves. this is a form of robbery.
and being the wealthyist of all sectors, fossil fuel certainly does not need them.

people don't want to give up their cars, but if they had to write a seperate check for the roads to drive them on,
instead of their cost coming invisible out of their general tax revinue, would they?
if they could comparison shop alternatives instead?

environment haters claim to worship markets, fine, so how about removing subsidies and see what markets actually do?
if that were honestly done, environment might actually win.

chance of honesty among so called conservitives pretty close to nil though. ultimately though, worship of little green pieces of paper,
will create an environment in which nothing human survives, then the pointy eared fluffy tailed meek, will have inherited the earth.

[The Blaatschapen]

people don't want to give up their cars, but if they had to write a seperate check for the roads to drive them on,
instead of their cost coming invisible out of their general tax revinue, would they?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftfahrzeugsteuer
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorrijtuigenbelasting

If you own a car, you pay a yearly tax for it.

[Ethel mermania]

people don't want to give up their cars, but if they had to write a seperate check for the roads to drive them on,
instead of their cost coming invisible out of their general tax revinue, would they?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftfahrzeugsteuer
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorrijtuigenbelasting

If you own a car, you pay a yearly tax for it.

In the states we dont have that. Some states do count cars as real property and you pay a yearly property tax on the car. (Never lived in a state so I am not quite sure dont
know how they evaluate. Also some states charge higher car registration fees based on the kind of car you own.

[Phoenicaea]

^beside discussions upon the protest aim, i love that woman's speech. i see some value in her

[Liriena]

Oh look, more virtue signalling that everyone will forget about in a week. How cute.

Oh look, more "virtue signalling bad" virtue signalling that adds absolutely fuck all to political discourse, let alone material reality, beyond placing a huge "LOOK AT ME MY CYNICISM MAKES ME SPECIAL" sign over your head.

[Luziyca]

It seems like the turnout for this week's Fridays for Future is much lower than it was last week, at least in my city. I think there were like ten people there when I saw them, including some bloke with a trumpet or some other instrument.

[Kernen]

Oh look, more virtue signalling that everyone will forget about in a week. How cute.

Oh look, more "virtue signalling bad" virtue signalling that adds absolutely fuck all to political discourse, let alone material reality, beyond placing a huge "LOOK AT ME MY CYNICISM MAKES ME SPECIAL" sign over your head.

Mostly it doesn't.