Greta Thunberg's Groupie

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

More disinfo!  Greta is 16. She turns 17 on January 3. You had one job, slick 

 

 

I put some recyclables in the green non-recyclable bin earlier.

I thought of you whilst doing it.

[soon]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I put some recyclables in the green non-recyclable bin earlier.

I thought of you whilst doing it.

I shaved my head earlier.

I thought of you whilst doing it.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

I shaved my head earlier.

I thought of you whilst doing it.

I do need a haircut.

[EvanG]

How bald is DieselDaisy? Is he like Trump bald, covering it up with his remaining hair, or is he like Phil Collins bald? I'm curious now...

[SoulMonster]

Why do Greta haters think she lies about sitting on the floor of a train? What do they think her motive would be for such a high-risk lie? That sitting on the floor of a train is somehow more environmentally friendly than sitting in a chair? That she is so concerned about her public image that she would refuse the comfort of a chair and instead insist on sitting on the floor in the hope the railway company would then cram lots more people into the train wagons? 

[action]

58 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why do Greta haters think she lies about sitting on the floor of a train? What do they think her motive would be for such a high-risk lie? That sitting on the floor of a train is somehow more environmentally friendly than sitting in a chair? That she is so concerned about her public image that she would refuse the comfort of a chair and instead insist on sitting on the floor in the hope the railway company would then cram lots more people into the train wagons? 

first off, I'm not a hater. That said, Greta is not, for some bizarre reason, immune to criticism. When you have just been pronounced 'the person of the year' by time, you kind of open yourself up for evaluation and criticism.

Luckily, we don't live in north korea where any criticism of the big leader is a criminal offence, which will grant you a ticket to the gulags. No, we live in the west: where everyone is judged, and everyone is judge. Sometimes that works out for you, sometimes it don't.

In this case, greta's tweet about crowded trains, while sitting on the floor, looking fatigued and staring in the distance, would provoke feelings of sympathy. But the real story, which the railway company explained, is that she voluntarily sat on the floor, rejecting a kind offer to sit in first class.

I think the problem is, we have the "person of the year" blatantly manipulating people into thinking she's having a hard time traveling from point A to point B, while this was a voluntary choice. Seeing how that is a very important factor to consider, without which you can not form an accurate image about her situation, she was obviously trying to gather sympathy. In short, she was bullshitting you.

Then the question poses itself: if she did it once, how many times did she do it before? To me, her credibility has taken a hit.

I'm still not hating her though.

PS. Doesn't she have to be at school?

Edited December 17, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

In this case, greta's tweet about crowded trains, while sitting on the floor, looking fatigued and staring in the distance, would provoke feelings of sympathy. But the real story, which the railway company explained, is that she voluntarily sat on the floor, rejecting a kind offer to sit in first class.

That's not the story I have heard. She sat on the floor for parts of the trip because it was crowded and then later was offered a first class seat later on in the journey. The railway company chastised her for only mentioning the first part where she had to sit on the floor and not the hospitality of the railway company when she was offered a seat. I get that, of course it would have been gracious of Greta to also mention that they offered her a free first class seat and treated her nicely, still it also was a bit bitchy of them. Greta's story is, btw, supported by an accompanying journalist...

Anyway, if people are going to accuse someone of lying then surely they must have asked themselves, why would she lie? People don't just lie without a motive. Or, most people don't... What would Greta's motive be? This one goes out to the hater Diesel who steadfastly refuses to accept that Greta actually did sit on the floor on one train before being offered a seat. What do he thinks is her motive for such an incredible high-risk lie considering numerous people must have seen her sitting in the seat? Do they really think Greta is so stupid she would leave her train seat, with numerous people around, to stage a fake photo-op where she sits at the floor and then post this on social media knowing that many people must have known the truth behind it? To gain what, sympathy? To come off as so environmentally focused she refuses the concept of riding trains while seated because surely trains should be crammed entirely full with people and then seats just adds space and weight? What on earth goes through the minds of these Greta haters?

[SoulMonster]

One of the most heavily scrutinized figures of 2019, a person that is consistently ridiculed and questioned for everything she does, a person whose message is so dependent upon how she comes across as an individual and her unblemished reputation, should have decided to fake a photo of herself sitting on the floor of a train, a train ride she shared with dozens others that would be witnesses to the deceit and could easily tell the truth, including the railway company and its personnel itself? It boggles the mind. It's like all logic flies out their heads when they have an opportunity to hate on Greta. Or maybe there wasn't much there to begin with? After all, these people are usually climate crisis-deniers.

[action]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's not the story I have heard. She sat on the floor for parts of the trip because it was crowded and then later was offered a first class seat later on in the journey. The railway company chastised her for only mentioning the first part where she had to sit on the floor and not the hospitality of the railway company when she was offered a seat.

fair do's. I'm not going to dispute that, I'm just going by what I read and hear.

That initial tweet and picture, had an effect of "sympathy" on me, and I'm sure many other people, her supporters first and foremost. "Look how she's sitting on the floor in a transnational train trip, wow she's so dedicated". Had Greta told the full story, from the start, I wouldn't have had the same amount of sympathy as I had when she omitted half of the story.

So I can only speak for myself, but Greta's actions had an affect of sympathy on me, and now that I know the full story I don't see what the fuss was all about with her sitting on the floor.

All of this, assuming that greta wanted to gather sympathy with her initial tweet. Which, pardon me the assumption, really looks to be the case.

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, action said:

fair do's. I'm not going to dispute that, I'm just going by what I read and hear.

That initial tweet and picture, had an effect of "sympathy" on me, and I'm sure many other people, her supporters first and foremost. 

Well, that's nice of you. I don't think she was trying to get sympathy for having to endure sitting on a floor though (she is 16, I doubt she cares), but perhaps more for the outcome of the conference she had just attended. Hence her solemnly looking out the window. So maybe you can have some sympathy for her climate concerns, or do you think her being offered a first class seat at a train cancels out that sympathy, too?

[Len Cnut]

Whats the big deal about sitting on the floor of a train anyway, I was sitting on the floor of the train from Euston to Watford the weekend before last, whoop-de-fuckin'-do, it was busy and I was knackered

[action]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, that's nice of you. I don't think she was trying to get sympathy for having to endure sitting on a floor though (she is 16, I doubt she cares), but perhaps more for the outcome of the conference she had just attended. Hence her solemnly looking out the window. So maybe you can have some sympathy for her climate concerns, or do you think her being offered a first class seat at a train cancels out that sympathy, too?

well, thank you.

I think, if you're going to be an inspiration to people, if you're going to advocate a drastic change in lifestyle, "back to basics" so to speak, then the message is equally as important as the messenger. Because a messenger who does not act upon his message, loses lots of credibility.

"Back to basics" does not "sit" well in first class.

It's a bit like lecturing people on their environmentally harmfull behaviour, while flying planes regularily for your work  

"luke 9:3

the ministry of the twelve

... and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. Take nothing for the journey, he told them, no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no second tunic."

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, action said:

well, thank you.

I think, if you're going to be an inspiration to people, if you're going to advocate a drastic change in lifestyle, "back to basics" so to speak, then the message is equally as important as the messenger. Because a messenger who does not act upon his message, loses lots of credibility.

"Back to basics" does not "sit" well in first class.

I think her message is to live more environmentally friendly, not to live without any comfort at all. A drastic change in lifestyle doesn't mean you should give up a free first class seat that is available when the train is already running . Can't people use their brain a bit? It must be possible to understand there is something between "not caring at all and just doing all one can to hurt the climate" and "live a frugal life where you reduce the carbon emissions to as close to zero as theoretically possible". It isn't entirely black and white. This isn't a two option situation. There is a continuum between these two extreme positions, and we all fall somewhere in this continuum. What she is doing is encouraging politicians to do more to incentivize people to live a bit further to the right on this continuum (towards environmentalism) and to impose regulations that results in industry becoming greener.

It seems like Greta haters don't understand this. What they do, of course, since they are against her message that they should do more for the climate, is to try to cancel that message by indicating that Greta isn't successfully achieving the extreme position of reducing her carbon emissions to zero. (As if that is even theoretically possible.) And hence they create a false hypocrisy. "Why should we do a bit more when Greta isn't perfect?". It is all so tediously unintellectual.

Edited December 17, 2019 by SoulMonster

[action]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 It must be possible to understand there is something between "not caring at all and just doing all one can to hurt the climate" and "live a frugal life where you reduce the carbon emissions to as close to zero as theoretically possible".

sure, it's possible to understand that. In fact, I think most people fall somewhere in between. I don't know anyone who does "not care at all" or "leave a frugal life". 99% of people fall in between.

But still, you guys are lecturing us, asking us "how dare you??" (which assumes we don't care at all)

it must be possible to make up your minds?

Edited December 17, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

sure, it's possible to understand that. In fact, I think most people fall somewhere in between. I don't know anyone who does "not care at all" or "leave a frugal life". 99% of people fall in between.

But still, you guys are lecturing us, asking us "how dare you??"

it must be possible to make up your minds?

Read my post again, will you? I was pointing out that we all live between these two extremes and that Greta's message is that we should try to live more environmentally friendly, e.g. closer to the right of the continuum (towards lower carbon emissions). When Greta says, "How dare you?" that is, as far as I am aware, to politicians who doesn't do enough, not to us non-politicians. After all, it is the politicians job to enact policies that benefit humankind and when they are not acting according to the scientific consensus then they are basically not doing the job they are supposed to do and that might seriously harm future generations. It is obvious she is right to admonish politicians for not taking climate crisis seriously enough. More people should be doing it. 

[action]

On 10/11/2019 at 4:40 PM, action said:

"Are you saying, we shouldn't try then" is always the argument I hear.

No, we shouldn't try, I say. What we should do then, is enjoy life for the time we have left, happily and without a care in the world. Try to care for your loved ones more, in stead of caring for the climate. Trust me, you will get much more satisfaction from that. But that's increasingly hard to do in this world. That way, the 11 years we still have left according to soon won't have been in total vain anyway.

 

On 10/11/2019 at 4:52 PM, SoulMonster said:

That irresponsible and selfish. And based on the flawed idea that we can't make changes and still enjoy ourselves, and the flawed idea that it is futile.

 

 

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Read my post again, will you? I was pointing out that we all live between these two extremes and that Greta's message is that we should try to live more environmentally friendly, e.g. closer to the right of the continuum (towards lower carbon emissions). When Greta says, "How dare you?" that is, as far as I am aware, to politicians who doesn't do enough, not to us non-politicians. After all, it is the politicians job to enact policies that benefit humankind and when they are not acting according to the scientific consensus then they are basically not doing the job they are supposed to do and that might seriously harm future generations. It is obvious she is right to admonish politicians for not taking climate crisis seriously enough. More people should be doing it. 

you called me irresponsible and selfish for merely enjoying life without a care in the world, but now you claim you were always rallying against the politicians who don't do enough.

So let's just establish that the "how dare you" also applies to people like me, who you consider irresponsible and selfish. Makes the scope of the argument much clearer, in stead of backtracking now.

I'm glad that you accept that most of us fall between the two extremes. However I am of the opinion that you can live your life carefree, without necessarily contributing to climate change in more than usual ways. How you stand in life, is largely part of your mindset, it's not environmentally harmfull in and of itself.

The real assholes are the CEO's of the big companies who drain earth's resources. Not people like me enjoying their little pleasures.

Your whole argument is futile, aimed at the wrong people, internally contradictory and at the end of the day you don't want to give up your plane flights.

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

you called me irresponsible and selfish for merely enjoying life without a care in the world, but now you claim you were always rallying against the politicians who don't do enough

What? I explained Greta's "How dare you?"? I am not Greta  What has my explanation of why she said those words any bearing on my motives. This is absurd.

[action]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What? I explained Greta's "How dare you?"? I am not Greta  What has my explanation of why she said those words any bearing on my motives. This is absurd.

"how dare you" or "you're selfish and irresponsible", what does it matter? it's the same audacious rhetoric.

you did say I was selfish and irresponsible. Of course, I just quoted it. 

but today, you acknowledge that there is no black and white, nearly everyone falls somewhere in between. This is where the area of tension is within your argument. You reserve yourself the right to keep on using planes, but you call me selfish and irresponsible for leading a carefree life. Guess which one contributes more to climate change: you or me?

I think, you can argue everything you want, and I will listen. But today, you're backtracking. Is it only the politicians that need to change? Is it the system? Are there people "not caring at all"? Or don't these people exist? One day they do, another day they don't. Anyway; lots of inconsistencies and logical fallacies. You're just having a laugh, do you? 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

"how dare you" or "you're selfish and irresponsible", what does it matter? it's the same audacious rhetoric.

But how could you even go from me explaining who Greta directed those words to, to concluding that "now you claim you were always rallying against the politicians who don't do enough"?  It is just bizarre. 

I don't know about Greta, but I would CERTAINLY refer to people who state that "we shouldn't try" to fight global warming because it won't work and rather just try to maximize our own happiness because we get "much more satisfaction from that" in complete disregard to scientific advise and with complete indifference to future generations, as SELFISH and IRRESPONSIBLE. Because that is exactly what it is. And if this was too convoluted for you, ket me be short: You are selfish and irresponsible. Yes, you.

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

 What she is doing is encouraging politicians to do more to incentivize people to live a bit further to the right on this continuum (towards environmentalism) and to impose regulations that results in industry becoming greener.

It seems like Greta haters don't understand this. What they do, of course, since they are against her message that they should do more for the climate, is to try to cancel that message by indicating that Greta isn't successfully achieving the extreme position of reducing her carbon emissions to zero. (As if that is even theoretically possible.) And hence they create a false hypocrisy. "Why should we do a bit more when Greta isn't perfect?". 

you seem to be struggling to reconcile your stance on the efforts needed to be made by politicians, as opposed to the efforts needed to  be made by us people.

From what I understand, you think the biggest burden lays with the politicians; they need to make efficient regulations. But it also seems, you reluctantly narrow this down to politicians (since this doesn't stop you from calling ordinary people selfish and irresponsible). At the very least, you lay some kind of responsability with ordinary people (otherwise, you wouldn't be able to call me irresponsible and selfish). But, you need to be careful not to lay too much responsability with ordinary people. After all, you need to be able to convincingly defend greta when she is taking polluting train trips (in first class, gasp!) / boat trips etc. When it's about greta, when it's about you, you claim not everyone can be acting totally environmentally efficient. When it's about me, who only said he doesn't care much about it all, I'm irresponsible and selfish.

The best arguments don't contain compromises, or exceptions. Your argument is as watertight as a fishnet.

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But how could you even go from me explaining who Greta directed those words to, to concluding that "now you claim you were always rallying against the politicians who don't do enough"?  It is just bizarre. 

I don't know about Greta, but I would CERTAINLY refer to people who state that "we shouldn't try" to fight global warming because it won't work and rather just try to maximize our own happiness because we get "much more satisfaction from that" in complete disregard to scientific advise and with complete indifference to future generations, as SELFISH and IRRESPONSIBLE. Because that is exactly what it is. And if this was too convoluted for you, ket me be short: You are selfish and irresponsible. Yes, you.

You can cut Greta a lot more slack than other people, ok got it. In short, you're just biased, struggling to come up with justifications for greta's bizarre behaviour.

Edited December 17, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, action said:

you seem to be struggling to reconcile your stance on the efforts needed to be made by politicians, as opposed to the efforts needed to  be made by us people.

From what I understand, you think the biggest burden lays with the politicians; they need to make efficient regulations. But it also seems, you reluctantly narrow this down to politicians (since this doesn't stop you from calling ordinary people selfish and irresponsible). At the very least, you lay some kind of responsability with ordinary people (otherwise, you wouldn't be able to call me irresponsible and selfish). But, you need to be careful not to lay too much responsability with ordinary people. After all, you need to be able to convincingly defend greta when she is talking polluting train trips / boat trips etc. When it's about greta, when it's about you, you claim not everyone can be acting totally environmentally efficient. When it's about me, who only said he doesn't care much about it all, I'm irresponsible and selfish.

The best arguments don't contain compromises, or exceptions. Your argument is as watertight as a fishnet.

You can cut Greta a lot more slack than other people, ok got it. In short, you're just biased, struggling to come up with justifications for greta's bizarre behaviour.

Oh, so much to unravel and so little time.

I am not even attempting to reconcile my stance on what politicians should do and what the rest of us should do. These are two different things and doesn't need reconciling mainly because it is the politicians job to enact policies that benefit mankind whereas as individuals we only govern our own lives. 

Yes, politicians need to make effective regulations, but I also think non-politicians should have a conscious relationship with the climate crises (how could we otherwise understand the danger and elect green politicians?). 

No, you are not "ordinary". There is nothing ordinary about encouraging us to not make an effort to prevent global warming because we should rather maximize our own happiness. Most people aren't that selfish or irresponsible. They either don't do enough because they can't or because they don't understand the issue. Not because they are indifferent to it. So you are selfish and irresponsible, the vast majority of people aren't. They might not do enough, or as much as I would want, but that alone doesn't make them selfish or irresponsible.

"Polluting train trips"?  Are you arguing she should travel more environmentally friendly than by train? What are you advocating? Travel by mule? 

And no, I never called you selfish and irresponsible for saying you "doesn't care much about it all" but for you comments that we shouldn't do anything because it is useless and because we are better off just increasing our own happiness than helping future generations. That is as selfish and irresponsible as it gets. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, though?

What argument are you referring to? It is hard to follow

"Come up with justifications for greta's bizarre behaviour"? What behaviour would that be? That she admonishes politicians for not doing enough? I find that very easy to justify. Because. Politicians. Aren't. Doing. Enough. Or for taking "polluting train trips"? That doesn't need justifications. Neither she, or I, or anyone else on the green side, is saying we should stop travel altogether. If you think we are arguing for the abolishment of travel, except by walking, then you are fighting a ridiculous straw man.

Edited December 17, 2019 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Whats the big deal about sitting on the floor of a train anyway, I was sitting on the floor of the train from Euston to Watford the weekend before last, whoop-de-fuckin'-do, it was busy and I was knackered

I have no idea why Diesel would think Greta would lie about such a thing. It make no sense to me.

[DieselDaisy]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have no idea why Diesel would think Greta would lie about such a thing. It make no sense to me.

And as I said to soon, I don't know! Ask her yourself. I don't know how her mind works, nor would I want to, sans it works with lashings of hypocrisy, smug moralising and stupidity.

Edited December 17, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And as I said to soon, I don't know! Ask her yourself. I don't know how her mind works, nor would I want to, sans it works with lashings of hypocrisy, smug moralising and stupidity.

It certainly says a lot about your mind when you find the idea that she would lie about such a thing - when no discernable motive behind such a lie can be found and when it would be highly likely the lie would be found out - more conceivable than her simply telling the truth.

[soon]

3 hours ago, action said:

first off, I'm not a hater. That said, Greta is not, for some bizarre reason, immune to criticism. When you have just been pronounced 'the person of the year' by time, you kind of open yourself up for evaluation and criticism.

Luckily, we don't live in north korea where any criticism of the big leader is a criminal offence, which will grant you a ticket to the gulags. No, we live in the west: where everyone is judged, and everyone is judge. Sometimes that works out for you, sometimes it don't.

In this case, greta's tweet about crowded trains, while sitting on the floor, looking fatigued and staring in the distance, would provoke feelings of sympathy. But the real story, which the railway company explained, is that she voluntarily sat on the floor, rejecting a kind offer to sit in first class.

I think the problem is, we have the "person of the year" blatantly manipulating people into thinking she's having a hard time traveling from point A to point B, while this was a voluntary choice. Seeing how that is a very important factor to consider, without which you can not form an accurate image about her situation, she was obviously trying to gather sympathy. In short, she was bullshitting you.

Then the question poses itself: if she did it once, how many times did she do it before? To me, her credibility has taken a hit.

I'm still not hating her though.

PS. Doesn't she have to be at school?

No. She never said she rejected first class. That’s not what her tweet about it said at all!!

and the train company didn’t say it offered her a first class seat that she rejected. Where do you get this stuff from?

and again: there’s no reason for her to lie, reject seats, etc.

its fascinating to observe how every time you speak about her, you are clearly just making things up. This is not the first time. You guess things and then state them as fact. Even though, especially in this case, the facts are laid out for you.