Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel Peace Prize?

[Manfred Belheim]

It didn't even mock the ideas, it expressly faux-mocked the ideas emphasis on faux. Such are conversations that flirt with heresy.

I didn't even faux mock the ideas or her, I was expressing faux outrage at the Nobel Committee (speaking of which, hasn't been talked about for a while?) for the nomination even though thousands of people can choose a nominee and being a nominee isn't all that big of a deal and totally reasonable if you are Greta Thunberg with a high public profile regarding what is viewed as an important issue.

Text bolded for those with reading comprehension problems.

Here is my initial post once more:

I meant the initial post in that particular exchange that I was quoting the final part of (i.e. about 4 or 5 posts above that). I've gone back and edited my post for clarity.

 

[Synobun]

Because my time is limited and I believe my time to be more valuable than listening to someone's wishlist for the future. A proposed solution doesn't need to be perfect; the merits can be judged after the proposal.

Her generation is people who have largely never paid a bill or worked a job as a productive member of society. They will someday, which is why suffrage is reserved for those over a certain age.

You are so close to getting it. Just one more tiny leap.

If you won't listen to Greta, then who? Why haven't you, since those people (undoubtedly you will cite "experts" here) already exist? More limited time? Well, then it seems like you should be all for Greta's message, since she wants us to pressure the people who do have the time (and the wherewithal to see it through!).

If her generation is entirely subservient on the previous, why not listen to their worries about the future that's been created for them? Why not endeavor to ensure that future isn't put at risk by our folly? Isn't it the general grinding gear of society and humanity to make certain the next generation has it better than the last? If so, shouldn't it be a priority that we haven't doomed them to an unnecessary struggle? What gain is seen by forcing them to deal with the byproduct of our inaction, when, as you so aptly pointed out, these children haven't even paid a bill yet or held a job? Surely it is unusually cruel to cite one's inability to function as an adult and then also have the position these people should be responsible for an impending crisis -- especially one that they can't be the cause of, since as you mention, they haven't had the chance to do anything yet.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a good comeback, "who have you actually listened to?". We could scroll through various poster histories to figure out when they first noticed a good idea on dealing with the AGW issue.

Also, it's so weird. AGW is very much generational theft. Everyone and their dog knows that debt is fiat. But everyone is also hand-wringing about leaving a national debt. But over-consuming a ecosystem buffer without leaving a replacement? Silence.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well yeah it's going to be pretty hard to tell anything if you're willing to ignore context.

True, I was ignoring the context of you ignoring the context. I take it back.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why do you think it's weird, El? Set aside functionally died from its wounds in the 80s. Doesn't seem an isolated mindset. Maximum consumption/consumers are the most valuable thing in the economy!

The pivot will come when it can be argued the poor just have to go to make way for those dinosaurs, right? So, roundabouts when the water gets up to the gates.

 

[amadeus]

Sure, you don't mock her. You just think no one should listen to her and definitely no young white guys could ever get her level of respect. Yup, that's not dismissive or knocking her.

I don't think anyone should listen to teenagers regarding most substantive issues, male or female.

I meant the initial post in that particular exchange that I was quoting the final part of (i.e. about 4 or 5 posts above that). I've gone back and edited my post for clarity.

Whoops! Then that may be my mistake for misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying!

You are so close to getting it. Just one more tiny leap.

If you won't listen to Greta, then who? Why haven't you, since those people (undoubtedly you will cite "experts" here) already exist? More limited time? Well, then it seems like you should be all for Greta's message, since she wants us to pressure the people who do have the time (and the wherewithal to see it through!).

I would be open to listening to someone who puts the situation into terms that are exclusively environmental and lays out the consequences of current policy vs. their proposed policy and what they believe projected effects would be. This means no "economic justice" points or anything else that raises a red flag to backdoor watermelon socialism.

If her generation is entirely subservient on the previous, why not listen to their worries about the future that's been created for them? Why not endeavor to ensure that future isn't put at risk by our folly? Isn't it the general grinding gear of society and humanity to make certain the next generation has it better than the last? If so, shouldn't it be a priority that we haven't doomed them to an unnecessary struggle? What gain is seen by forcing them to deal with the byproduct of our inaction, when, as you so aptly pointed out, these children haven't even paid a bill yet or held a job? Surely it is unusually cruel to cite one's inability to function as an adult and then also have the position these people should be responsible for an impending crisis -- especially one that they can't be the cause of, since as you mention, they haven't had the chance to do anything yet.

I agree that being a decent steward of the environment is a good thing! I disagree though that we are at this impending crisis that requires a radical reorganization of society, and that any such attempts to fix the problem wouldn't even do it.

 

[Synobun]

I would be open to listening to someone who puts the situation into terms that are exclusively environmental and lays out the consequences of current policy vs. their proposed policy and what they believe projected effects would be. This means no "economic justice" points or anything else that raises a red flag to backdoor watermelon socialism.

Reducing emissions and switching from coal and oil is "backdoor watermelon socialism"?

You'll listen to people who keep it exclusively environmental, you say? Well, that's good. You must be convinced about the climate crisis we're facing, then. Greta is your ally. She is broadcasting your message.

Wait, hold on...

I agree that being a decent steward of the environment is a good thing! I disagree though that we are at this impending crisis that requires a radical reorganization of society, and that any such attempts to fix the problem wouldn't even do it.

It's really strange how your "just a mere example" defense about using Greta for your OP matches up well with denialism. A coincidence, I am sure. I don't see how this matches up with your "I'll listen to someone who puts the situation into terms that are exclusively environmental and lays out the consequences of current policy" and then being a milquetoast denialist.

Pray tell, who do you follow that matches the definition you provided but supports your claim that this is all fairly mediocre and of little concern?

 

[Absolution]

It is different, in few subtle ways. First of all, she doesn’t have political education or at least sufficient experience in the field to be considered one. Being a political leader virtually always requires extensive education, and this flavour of it is hard to get. She is not well versed in different schools of economics, sociology, history, law and many other things professional politician should have at least baseline understanding of. Another important point is that she was not elected. Nor appointed by equal-minded individuals. And then.. simply life experience. People become politicians by living long enough. There is a reason we don’t see many young faces in parliaments.

She is a modern Joan of Arc with few ideas and passion, who got taken in by forces far greater than she has the scope to control and I doubt this will play out perfect for her.. unless she changes course immediately. What she needs is formal education, I bet she can get the best one in the world right now, in any field, if she decides to, most famous universities on the planet will be happy to oblige. Then come back to the world stage and try to make real changes.

Another important point is that she was not elected.

I have got to disagree on this one.
Being not democratically elected by a state institution does not mean she has not been elected to represent an idealistic group of people.
Theoretically speaking, she can be a real representation of those people. Better than a system-expert, election master political star, who has to be qualified in various other things in order to be elected, in addition to being a true representative of public will.
However, in practice, it doesn't mean that Greta is necessarily a good leader for the said group to stand behind. I just say that not being elected in a political system doesn't make her less fit for the title by a single bit.
Just as an example - Gandhi, Luther King, or even Bob Dylan back in the early 60s weren't elected in order to represent a public interest in the group that they stood for. Were they bad? Were most elected leaders better at that? Not necessarily.
Obviously there are good and bad example for both sides, but my point is exactly that.

 

[Kyriakos]

No one seems to want the examine the possibility that she is an alien-familiar, ordered to slow-down industrial output on earth with the Delta Draconis fleet already dispatched.

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't think anyone should listen to teenagers regarding most substantive issues, male or female.

smile

Listening to each other is a win-win
also with children

With children much of the win for the parents or adults comes when these children get older

A matter of respect and trust.

 

[amadeus]

@Synsensa, I'd be more willing to discuss further this if you were less inclined of accusing me of acting in bad faith and then, deliberately or not, misinterpreting my posts and making incorrect inferences. I've already stated my impetus for posting this thread twice already. Don't believe it? Tough cookies.

 

[Synobun]

@Synsensa, I'd be more willing to discuss further this if you were less inclined of accusing me of acting in bad faith and then, deliberately or not, misinterpreting my posts and making incorrect inferences. I've already stated my impetus for posting this thread twice already. Don't believe it? Tough cookies.

It would be very easy to prove me wrong. You could have done so with a post the same length as this "I'm leaving the sandbox because you are mean." sidebar.

That said, I don't really see how it's "tough cookies" for me. I'm perfectly comfortable filing you away as a full-nonsense denialist who couches his opinions as examples and thought experiments. I lose nothing with your choice to stomp off the moment you're called out.

 

[amadeus]

I don't engage in discussions with bad faith actors.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't engage in discussions with bad faith actors.

Everyone else can see that you just threw a mini-tantrum because Synsensa accurately pointed out that your attitude towards Greta Thunberg stems from this political commitment:

I disagree though that we are at this impending crisis that requires a radical reorganization of society, and that any such attempts to fix the problem wouldn't even do it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

True, I was ignoring the context of you ignoring the context. I take it back.

We've got 13 pages of posts and you zeroed in one specific 4-post exchange, yet I'm ignoring the context?

I don't think anyone should listen to teenagers regarding most substantive issues, male or female.

But you made sure to point out specifically that no young man could receive her level of attention because..?

 

[amadeus]

Everyone else can see that you just threw a mini-tantrum because Synsensa accurately pointed out that your attitude towards Greta Thunberg stems from this political commitment:

My personal feelings on the severity of the issue have little bearing on how I think it should be discussed at large. This applies to any issue. I try to be willing to hear people out and I’m first to admit that I have biases and maybe there are some things that are beyond my understanding.

But you made sure to point out specifically that no young man could receive her level of attention because..?

I did not say that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

We've got 13 pages of posts and you zeroed in one specific 4-post exchange, yet I'm ignoring the context?

You quoted and directly replied to a post directly above yours, which in turn quoted and directly replied to a post two above that one (which was a direct retort to an individual statement, not a general comment), and you ignored the context of that first post entirely. And then two posts later you stated that posts like that first one don't even exist at all ("the criticism is 100% about how she's a young female daring to speak up"). So yes... you completely ignored the context.

 

[Senethro]

You quoted and directly replied to a post directly above yours, which in turn quoted and directly replied to a post two above that one (which was a direct retort to an individual statement, not a general comment), and you ignored the context of that first post entirely. And then two posts later you stated that posts like that first one don't even exist at all ("the criticism is 100% about how she's a young female daring to speak up"). So yes... you completely ignored the context.

This point, like many of your points, is not worth the repetition and belabouring into X many new pages. You've made it. Let it stand.

 

[El_Machinae]

Reducing emissions and switching from coal and oil is "backdoor watermelon socialism"?

It doesn't need to be. But I can see how someone would be worried that it would.

IMO, switching to a low-carbon economy would be the very opposite of socialism, because it's a clear acknowledgement of the limits of private property and the very limits of being able to use courts to redress torts.

I think a conversation of "what proposed solutions seem 'too socialist' and which proposed solutions aren't?" is a good one.

I view AGW as intergenerational/cross-border property theft. You'd use same models for any shared resource. Aquifers. Caribou. Migrating fish. None of these are 'socialist'.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I don't understand ... why would people mock Greta Thunberg and what she's trying to do? And why would she have to create all the solutions?

My understanding is that she's raising awareness, and energizing her generation to put pressure on the Powers That Be to do something. She's a child, she isn't a scientist who can create tools to reverse the damage, or a mogul who can finance research, or a politician who can work to make policy. But why would you expect her to be one of those things? Why should she be expected to do everything herself?

Because if we set the bar so high that literally no-one short of Lex Luthor is a legitimate actor, we don't have to take responsibility for anything.