The Reason People Hate Greta Thunberg

[Gatsby]

That really raises the question: Which climate change activists either individually or organizationally do you respect?

Here are the 10 biggest solar companies. All of whom are doing more for the climate than performative activists.

10 Biggest Solar Companies

With NextEra Energy leading the pack, these are the 10 biggest solar companies based on market capitalization

www.investopedia.com

Because if you cannot name any or indicate why your respect them, I think it is fair to say that you do not care about this issue except to find ways to stymie any attempts to bring about change.

I think your entire premise is misguided if you think it's the people who throw soup at artwork or block highways or glue themselves to airport runways who are going to solve climate change, rather than the people who build solar energy companies or learn the science of industrial-scale batteries.

And I think having a conversation as to why you are against government action to stop crises, like mitigating climate change or stopping the Gaza genocide would be a far more interesting conversation, rather than the individual behavior of any given climate change activists.

Who says I'm against government action to mitigate climate change? I support continued implementation of the CHIPS Act, and I'm a bit disappointed that the previous administration bungled the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act's investments in green energy.

Why would that matter? People with social cache often lend it to draw attention to crises. Celebrities, musicians, public intellectuals, famous influencers, etc. draw public attention to various social causes all the time. Most of the time, they are not subject matter experts on the crisis at hand. After all, did George Harrison have deep ties and a doctoral understanding of the complexities of Bangladesh that disqualified him from starting a benefit concert for Bangladesh during the genocidal campaign Pakistan waged against them during their war for independence and their famine? No. Did it matter? I mean, perhaps it caused you to sneer (I do not know how old you were in 1971), but I am not sure too many Bangladeshis were upset by this.

I do not know to what extent George Harrison just raised money, and to what extent he engaged in performative activism about topics he knew nothing about. But if it's this one, I note that it took place in Madison Square Garden (where people actually have money to give) rather than Bangladesh. If Greta Thunberg wants to take a flotilla to Gaza to be the next Beatle and raise money, she might pick a more lucrative venue where people actually have money to donate.

The Concert for Bangladesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Has she claimed she has the solution for peace in the Middle East? As far as I am aware she just wants a cease fire and for Israel to stop slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women and children, and for aid to be delivered to the Gazans who are imprisoned by Israel. Maybe there is more to it than that. But even if she is so conceited that she thinks she has all the answers, I do not see why her concerns should be ignored when they seem to mirror the growing sentiments of most people both in Europe and the United States, a majority of whom no longer support Israel.

OK but literally anyone can do that. If it doesn't specifically need to be the climate change chick, then it's just generic left-wing activist slop that could just as easily be any of a dozen other issues by any of a thousand other people. Which is fine if that's what she wants to do now, it's just not important for anyone else. Like I said in my initial post...it reminds me of former child movie stars struggling to stay relevant.

 

[Felis Leo]

Here are the 10 biggest solar companies. All of whom are doing more for the climate than performative activists.

10 Biggest Solar Companies

With NextEra Energy leading the pack, these are the 10 biggest solar companies based on market capitalization

www.investopedia.com

I think your entire premise is misguided if you think it's the people who throw soup at artwork or block highways or glue themselves to airport runways who are going to solve climate change, rather than the people who build solar energy companies or learn the science of industrial-scale batteries.

So none. Even though the whole reason we have so many solar power firms is largely due initially to government incentives which were themselves spurred by environmental activists.

Who says I'm against government action to mitigate climate change? I support continued implementation of the CHIPS Act, and I'm a bit disappointed that the previous administration bungled the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act's investments in green energy.

I mean, great.

I do not know to what extent George Harrison just raised money, and to what extent he engaged in performative activism about topics he knew nothing about. But if it's this one, I note that it took place in Madison Square Garden (where people actually have money to give) rather than Bangladesh. If Greta Thunberg wants to take a flotilla to Gaza to be the next Beatle and raise money, she might pick a more lucrative venue where people actually have money to donate.

The Concert for Bangladesh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Money is not the issue. There is plenty of aid that countries are willing to deliver to help 2 million starving people in Gaza. That aid was being delivered regularly until the genocidal Israeli government stopped it three months ago. Greta Thunberg could raise millions even billions of dollars, and it would not make a difference so long as Israel is allowed to keep aid out by its allies like the United States and Europe. And if she did raise such vast sums, doubtless the Israelis and their supporters and perhaps even those such as yourself would call it a cynical cash grab since the money cannot go to Gaza.

OK but literally anyone can do that. If it doesn't specifically need to be the climate change chick, then it's just generic left-wing activist slop that could just as easily be any of a dozen other issues. Which is fine if that's what she wants to do now, it's just not important for anyone else. Like I said in my initial post...it reminds me of former child movie stars struggling to stay relevant.

If it draws negative public attention, outrage and disgust which in turn puts public pressure on Western governments to sanction Israel, then that is all that is needed. No one knew who Rachel Corrie was even after Israel murdered her. Everyone knows who Greta Thunberg is, and Israel has pulled out the kid gloves to use on her. In matters such as these, celebrity and attention beat subject matter expertise.

And really quick, as an aside, do you think what is going on in Gaza by Israel is a genocide or is Israel justified in doing what it is doing because of Hamas' actions on October 7th? Do you find the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people including thousands of children, and keeping out all journalists from documenting what is going on unless they are die-hard Israel supporters going on choreographed tours with the Israeli military not worthy of condemnation? Or do you need to defer to experts before you can have an opinion?

 

[Gatsby]

I mean, great.

That's exactly what I mean. Practical solutions to real-world problems are of zero interest to climate change activists (or really, most other kind of activists). It's more fun and gets more social media attention to get arrested for throwing soup at paintings in art museums. And thus, they measure interest in solving climate change (or most other problems) by how many soup-throwers you can name, rather than by the details of boring policy implementation.

 

[Felis Leo]

That's exactly what I mean. Practical solutions to real-world problems are of zero interest to climate change activists (or really, most other kind of activists). It's more fun to get arrested for throwing soup at paintings in art museums. And thus, they measure interest in solving climate change (or most other problems) by how many soup-throwers you can name, rather than by the details of boring policy implementation.

That is utterly ahistorical, Gatsby. The reason public sentiment changes over time is largely (often entirely) due to political activism. The reason people became amenable to ending racial segregation in the United States was due to activism. The reason people changed their minds with regard to gay marriage (and no longer thinking that being gay was some kind of perverse mental disorder like pedophilia) was due to activism. The reason we have environmental laws, national parks, emission standards is due to activism. You point to a few extremist climate change protesters and sneer and claim that they are characteristic of activists, when you either do not understand or simply ignore that public sentiment is changed all the time by activists, both right-wing and left-wing. It is that public sentiment which politicians respond to. Not technocracy.

The technocracy is a possible solution to problems. But without activism, people and the politicians who serve them generally do not recognize them to be problems in the first place needing to be solved.

Addendum: I still would ask with regard to Gaza and whether you think what is going on constitutes genocidal conduct by Israel, and if you believe Israel's conduct in their campaign against Gazan civilians is acceptable.

 

[Gatsby]

That is utterly ahistorical, Gatsby. The reason public sentiment changes over time is largely (often entirely) due to political activism. The reason people became amenable to ending racial segregation in the United States was due to activism.

I'd argue it was more due to the invention and popularization of the television, since activism had been around for 200+ years by that point.

The reason people changed their minds with regard to gay marriage (and no longer thinking that being gay was some kind of perverse mental disorder like pedophilia) was due to activism.

I'd again argue that Will & Grace and Ellen and the invention of the internet and the invention of AZT played a bigger role, than the dudes wearing bondage gear at Pride parades and behaving like exactly the kind of freaks their opponents said they were.

The reason we have environmental laws, national parks, emission standards is due to activism.

None of these climate activists who throw soup at paintings and glue themselves to airport runways would be placated in the slightest by tougher emission standards. They couldn't tell you what the emission standards currently are, what they should be, or why. And anyone who even wanted to have that conversation with them would be viewed as ideologically suspect for trying to "gotcha" them.

You point to a few extremist climate change protesters and sneer and claim that they are characteristic of activists,

OK but Greta Thunberg is that kind of activist.

when you either do not understand or simply ignore that public sentiment is changed all the time by activists, both right-wing and left-wing. It is that public sentiment which politicians respond to. Not technocracy.

I should clarify that I'm talking mainly about performative activists (i.e. people who show up to protests and get arrested for doing outrageous shit). The ones who call their congresspeople and pressure their governors to veto Bill X and sign Bill Y...yes, I agree that those kind of activists can have a very big role in shaping policy, for better or worse.

The technocracy is a possible solution to problems. But without activism, people and the politicians who serve them generally do not recognize them to be problems in the first place needing to be solved.

Again I'd argue that the political salience of climate change (which is still quite low compared to other important issues) is mainly driven by 1) the objective facts and news reporting on them, 2) experts on climate science making their views known.

To the extent that pressure groups play a role, it's at least as likely to be negative as positive (i.e. the Green Party demolishing Germany's last nuclear power plants, or the Sierra Club siding with NIMBYs against solar farms in the United States).
To the extent that performative activists play a role, it's overwhelmingly negative (i.e. being so obnoxious that normies can't help but dislike them, such as shutting down highways).

 

[Gatsby]

Addendum: I still would ask with regard to Gaza and whether you think what is going on constitutes genocidal conduct by Israel, and if you believe Israel's conduct in their campaign against Gazan civilians is acceptable.

I think it's time Israel wrapped it up and withdrew from Gaza. At this point they have either dislodged Hamas or they haven't. I don't see what good comes from a prolonged occupation.

 

[Nickyjo]

I hope she pukes her guts out when she watched the videos of what Hamas did to Israel.

“I congratulate the IDF for the quick and safe takeover of the ‘Madleen’ flotilla to prevent them from breaking the blockade and reaching the shores of Gaza,” Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said on X.​

​

“I instructed the IDF to show the flotilla passengers the video of the horrors of the October 7 massacre when they arrive at the port of Ashdod,” he wrote.​

​

“It is appropriate that the anti-Semitic Greta and her fellow Hamas supporters see exactly who the Hamas terrorist organization they came to support and for whom they work is, what atrocities they committed against women, the elderly, and children, and against whom Israel is fighting to defend itself,” he explained.​

​

Greta Thunberg and friends on intercepted ‘selfie yacht’ will be forced to watch ‘video of the horrors’ of Oct. 7, Israel says

“I instructed the IDF to show the flotilla passengers the video of the horrors of the October 7 massacre when they arrive at the port of Ashdod,” Israel’s defense minister, Israel…

nypost.com

And she might puke her guts out when watching what Netanyahu is doing to children in Gaza.

 

[Felis Leo]

I think it's time Israel wrapped it up and withdrew from Gaza. At this point they have either dislodged Hamas or they haven't. I don't see what good comes from a prolonged occupation.

Well, that is the point. The Israeli government does not want to engage in a prolonged occupation. Rather, the Israeli government is on record for wanting to ethnically cleanse Gaza. They are simply making the strip so uninhabitable and life so unbearable, with parents not knowing if their children are going to be gunned down or bombed waiting in line for food and children not knowing if their parents are going to disappear in a cloud of pink mist, and everyone being made so malnourished that most people would leap at the chance to leave the Strip if given the opportunity. Though where they would be turned out to would likely be even worse in the long run since no country in the region is equipped to deal with 2 million refugees arriving on their doorstep overnight.

 

[Felis Leo]

And she might puke her guts out when watching what Netanyahu is doing to children in Gaza.

That is the main reason the Israeli government and military is refusing all foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip unless they are professedly devoted to the State of Israel, like Douglas Murray. And even then, the pro-Israel journalists are kept under the carefully choreographed watch of the Israeli military to make sure that the journalist does not inadvertently record too much that can be used to further implicate the Israeli military and government.

 

[Dans La Lune]

This reminds me of the MAGA faithful who truly believe the only reason the Left hates Trump is because he loves America


Why is it so difficult for folks to accept that other people may think differently than them.?

Because no one of your ideology debates honestly or on the merits. They're out there calling Geta a grifter, or a spoiled brat, grandstander, or wishing her actual harm.

If you had a substantive argument you would have put it forth, but you don't.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Indeed. Just look at David Hogg.

What about him? Oh right, he tries to upset the Democrat's establishment, consulting class grift, which has caused them to lose elections against a Fascist Clown -- TWICE. God forbid we try something different.

 

[Dans La Lune]

My default assumption is that most performative activists of all political stripes are charlatans. Then add to that the hypocrisy of her particular flavor of performative activism making climate change - which is (was?) her main cause - worse, and it's clear that at the very least, she doesn't actually mean what she says.

You have to believe that. Otherwise there might be genuinely good people out there, like Rachel Corrie.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Greta Thunberg is going to stop a genocide. OK. Seems likely.

She is using her power and celebrity to bring attention to it and putting herself in harm's way. If you don't think so, ask the 18 people who were killed by Israel on a similar mission.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Congratulations, you have exposed me for being a normal human being.

I think that your brand of normalcy exists is a problem for society. Fascism cannot exist without your brand of normalcy giving it oxygen. I'm not calling you a fascist, I'm just saying that fascism cannot exist without cross the bridge that you represent. There has to be acceptance of the argument first [whether its immigrants, transgender, government regulation, etc.], and then a choice between either left or right solutions. Moderates invariably conceded by the right-wing's argument and framing, and thus are going to gravitate towards their solutions. From there it's just a quick hop towards fascism gaining political power.

In short, you're the problem. That there aren't enough people like Greta is a secondary problem. My role in this equation is to act as a multiplier for her message.

How much fossil fuel do you suppose it takes to support your pointless virtue signaling effort from behind a keyboard?

I'm glad you admit that my positions are a virtue. I agree.

 

[Visbek]

I mean, before it was mainly limited to climate change, which was her big thing. OK, fair enough. What does protesting in Gaza have to do with climate change?

Why does she need to be limited to the first issue she worked on when she was 15?

If she's just one more voice for the "omnicause" that's fine, she's an adult who can do what she wants, but it's definitely a pivot.

So what? Why are you insisting that activists need to be restricted to a single cause in order to be genuine?

Martin Luther King Jr started out, obviously, focusing on civil rights. In 1967, he started to publicly oppose the Vietnam War. Was that a "pivot" that proves he was a charlatan?

Maybe. I don't know her financial situation, but there are other forms of payment such as fame and/or social media likes.

So... You don't have any actual evidence that her activism is inauthentic. You're just going to assume that's the case anyway. Seems weird.

OK then. Which activists meet your lofty standards?

 

[Gatsby]

Why does she need to be limited to the first issue she worked on when she was 15?

She doesn't. She can protest Gaza or water fluoridation or wearing fur or whatever she wants.

So what? Why are you insisting that activists need to be restricted to a single cause in order to be genuine?

I think "genuine" is the wrong word here. I'm sure she's convinced herself that the world needs the bold protest actions of Greta Thunberg, and that the specific cause is basically interchangeable and secondary to the main goal of Greta Thunberg getting arrested on TV. The need for attention makes people believe lots of stupid things.

Martin Luther King Jr started out, obviously, focusing on civil rights. In 1967, he started to publicly oppose the Vietnam War. Was that a "pivot" that proves he was a charlatan?

Notably he connected the Vietnam War to his own civil rights struggle, rather than switching gears and undermining what he had previously said about civil rights.

So... You don't have any actual evidence that her activism is inauthentic. You're just going to assume that's the case anyway. Seems weird.

I don't think her activism is "inauthentic," whatever that means. I think she is authentically an unwell 22-year-old college student who has been protesting since she was a kid and is looking for a way to stay relevant. In that sense, she is the real deal.

OK then. Which activists meet your lofty standards?

I don't have much use for any performative activists. I'll take the boring policy wonks, the scientists and engineers, or the people working in industries to solve the world's problems over any number of people waving signs or throwing soup or blocking highways.

 

[TobyOne]

She's a nutter.

Greta Thunberg has devoted her life to justice and morality, and in doing so, she exposes the immorality of people who seek injustice. She is among the best of us, and she brings attention to causes that people find uncomfortable or are ideologically committed to opposing.

People who are morally bankrupt hate a do-gooder, because they cynically believe people should be in it for themselves and not for the good of others.

 

[Visbek]

She doesn't. She can protest Gaza or water fluoridation or wearing fur or whatever she wants.

Then why did you attack her for not sticking to climate change?

I think "genuine" is the wrong word here.

I'm sure it is the correct one.

I'm also sure that you will just keep making up excuses to object to her activism, regardless of any actual facts.

E.g. I see little indication that she is deliberately doing things for attention. It's not like she is going on reality TV shows. She's an activist, and she's working regardless of the amount of attention she gets at any time.

Notably he connected the Vietnam War to his own civil rights struggle, rather than switching gears and undermining what he had previously said about civil rights.

So now, it IS a problem to switch gears? Make up your mind.

I don't think her activism is "inauthentic," whatever that means.

Apparently you do, since you're accusing her without evidence of desperately seeking attention.

I think she is authentically an unwell 22-year-old college student who has been protesting since she was a kid and is looking for a way to stay relevant. In that sense, she is the real deal.

Yes, we can tell she is "unwell" because... she's an activist?

I don't have much use for any performative activists. I'll take the boring policy wonks, the scientists and engineers, or the people working in industries to solve the world's problems over any number of people waving signs or throwing soup or blocking highways.

News flash! Scientists and engineers working in the background have their role, and do important work. But so do the activists who drag issues into the public.

To wit: It seems pretty obvious that obnoxious activists like MLK Jr, Gandhi, Larry Kramer, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, John Lewis, and hundreds of others should have sat down and shut the **** up, because... waving signs and blocking highways is bad!!!

 

[Gatsby]

Then why did you attack her for not sticking to climate change?

I'm not really attacking her for anything...in many ways she is completely normal for her age, and in the ways in which she is abnormal it's mainly positive (e.g. I'm sure she has a very high IQ). She can get those social media likes, or whatever reason she has for doing the things she does. I'm sure most of us were immature idiots in college, we just didn't have international news coverage of it.

I'm sure it is the correct one.

I'm also sure that you will just keep making up excuses to object to her activism, regardless of any actual facts.

E.g. I see little indication that she is deliberately doing things for attention. It's not like she is going on reality TV shows. She's an activist, and she's working regardless of the amount of attention she gets at any time.

Your reality TV show comparison seems pretty apt. Getting arrested on a Gaza flotilla is basically just the highbrow version of some professional moron on reality TV getting into a barfight because he felt disrespected. Nothing is resolved, the world is exactly the same as before, but in their minds they both feel like they accomplished something important.

Yes, we can tell she is "unwell" because... she's an activist?

My understanding is that Greta Thunberg would be the first to acknowledge her mental health challenges. Lots of young people struggle with it.

News flash! Scientists and engineers working in the background have their role, and do important work. But so do the activists who drag issues into the public.

To wit: It seems pretty obvious that obnoxious activists like MLK Jr, Gandhi, Larry Kramer, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, John Lewis, and hundreds of others should have sat down and shut the **** up, because... waving signs and blocking highways is bad!!!

OK, maybe Greta Thunberg is the next Gandhi who is going to lead Gaza to independence and become the moral voice of her new (adopted) nation. Or maybe she's more likely to be like the other 99.9% of college kids who protest for this or that half-formed idea, before getting bored and/or learning that the world is less simple than they thought.

College kids will do what they do, and that's fine. They are still learning and don't have a lot of life experience yet. But those who don't have the excuse of being an immature 22-year-old should probably be a bit more discerning about amplifying them as though they actually have something insightful or important to say.

 

[Mithrae]

Greta Thunberg has devoted her life to justice and morality, and in doing so, she exposes the immorality of people who seek injustice. She is among the best of us, and she brings attention to causes that people find uncomfortable or are ideologically committed to opposing.

People who are morally bankrupt hate a do-gooder, because they cynically believe people should be in it for themselves and not for the good of others.

I'd be careful of that sentiment. Hopefully she doesn't embrace it herself. Everyone has flaws - MLK was a serial adulterer, Gandhi held racist and misogynistic views, Jesus was a cult leader who preached fire and brimstone - and those flaws are most likely to go unchecked if followers and figurehead cultivate a purity mythos. Thunberg like those other folk may well be among the best of us, but bear in mind that its easy to fall and not exactly a high bar to clear in the first place

 

[Mithrae]

"Saving the planet is the responsibility of you peasants, not important people like me." - @Dans La Lune

I'm sure there's some folk who won't bother to read your lengthier posts in these last two pages of the discussion. Just figured I'd quote this completely (and deliberately?) asinine earlier post as a reminder that - whatever your subsequent rationalizations - your involvement was never in good faith.

 

[Gatsby]

I'm sure there's some folk who won't bother to read your lengthier posts in these last two pages of the discussion. Just figured I'd quote this completely (and deliberately?) asinine earlier post as a reminder that - whatever your subsequent rationalizations - your involvement was never in good faith.

Cool. Thanks for the drive-by high-quality response! I'm sure you know what responses like that get you. Have a great life!

 

[Mithrae]

But that is inane. We are talking about global climate change. Individual acts of self-denial are useless. To draw an analogy, this would be like the two of us debating in the 1850s that the proper to answer to ending slavery would be convincing individual slave owners granting manumission to their slaves instead of total abolition and granting citizenship to the slaves. The first route puts the onus on individuals to create individual solutions to a systemic problem. The second is a systemic solution to a systemic problem, and actually achieves the desired goal despite the disruptions.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy. One can advocate for systemic change and use public transport, reduce consumption and avoid jetsetting around the world. Quite aside from the obvious problem of optics, advocates and policymakers accustomed to a lifestyle of high energy consumption will be both psychologically and pragmatically much less inclined to strenuously push for changes which would impact that lifestyle. That's not to ignore the fact that there might be rare occasions when the net expected results of (for example) a flight to an important event could be better than not going. Perhaps Thunberg's internal maths on this occasion was something along the lines of her trip being a ~0.001% contribution towards the possibility of saving ~100,000+ Palestinian lives in the next decade and thus more important than a ~0.00000000001% contribution towards the possibility of ~5,000,000,000+ climate-related deaths in the next century That may be arbitrary, but not really implausible. However in other cases, I'm sure there are supposed advocates whose hypocrisy is rank enough to legitimately undermine the credibility of their intentions, if not their arguments (Al Gore comes to mind as a likely example).

 

[markdc]

What about him? Oh right, he tries to upset the Democrat's establishment, consulting class grift, which has caused them to lose elections against a Fascist Clown -- TWICE. God forbid we try something different.

I don't give a **** what they do over in the Democrat Marxist Party.

Mark

 

[JMB1911A1]

So, apparently Greta and the rest of her compatriots were offered an opportunity to watch the Hamas videos of Oct 7 that Israel captured. Not surprisingly, they refused. Ant-semites can't let their world view be disrupted.

MSN

“The Israeli defence minister did arrange for the group to be shown a video depicting the atrocities of October 7, but apparently once they knew what they were watching, these people refused to see the rest of it, they prefer to maintain their ignorance.”