Opening myself up for “ass whooping” LOL
An in-named poster got me thinking about the extremes of “cults of personality”.
Trump is an example where there are a group of followers (not all of course) that have taken his leadership to an extreme level (Q-anon and certain commentators). It is fascinating.
Now...I trust the science of climate change - and we are growing that body of knowledge and application- however I do truly dislike the “poster child” of the message which imo is exploitive and emotional (“how dare you!” ... like the boomers could foresee everything). Everything is evolving (reference to understanding our relationship with the earth, money, political ideas, humanity, etc)
I feel there can be a “shut down” of opposing thought, not to say it isn’t happening, but the data interpretation (ie how many ways can the data from Coronavirus be interpreted- it’s “there”, no doubt).
As an example, we have autistic Temple Grandin. She accomplished something. She herself used science. She also moved towards solutions...amazing story, amazing woman.
All I’m saying is what does “Greta” herself bring to the table? Why should adults listen to her? And she is not the voice of the children - I don’t buy that. If it’s to get the masses to examine the science, then have a fuckin’ scientist as a “figure”.
In fact, it’s my past history and the hysteria around propaganda figures that usually make me want to examine the other side or think “bullshit” if that’s all you got.
Edited to add: article from the Guardian (always favourable to Greta, but even their opening headline makes it clear “I’m morally bankrupt...”)
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/1...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhRhvH1nJpY&list=UUprs0DXUS-refN1i8FkQkdg
Matt breaks down some of the statistics for you. I tend to just listen to the WHO. or Center for Disease Control. I just don't pay attention to anything else. I regard the rest and hype.
@ Whitefire13
"All I’m saying is what does “Greta” herself bring to the table? Why should adults listen to her?"
A true leader who effects change has a strong personality, but more important, they have a very strong image on how they want the world to become. In fact, they are committed to that change, be it Henry Ford, Mao, Ghandi, or Greta.
I follow Greta because she is committed to her ideals, she will not just drop it if it becomes inconvenient to her. And I embrace her ideals.
Most politicians will change their position if it becomes inconvenient, the polls say otherwise, or they get an offer (being bought out).
Greta is 17
I also had ideals at 17
So do the JW kids that knock on your door but you see them as being exploited.
Henry, Mao, Grandi - all grown ups. All accomplished something based on their own merit.
What has “Greta” brought to the table - herself?
This is why someone accomplished should be setting an “ideal” (which btw I don’t believe in anyway but understand the idea of such a thing).
@ Whitefire13
"Greta is 17"
Are you disqualifying her because of her age?
Newton invented calculus when he was 24, Einstein first conceptualized his theory of relativity at the age of 25. Joan of Arc.
David... where’s her scientific papers then? You keep comparing people that accomplished something in their lives through their own work to her. I compare her to “celebrity” “the face of climate activism” - thus the cult of personality. You said she was idealistic. Her age plays a part in that idealism (or maturity - which doesn’t always go hand in hand).
Edited to add - Ford, Gandhi, Einstein, etc can be spoken of for their accomplishments and also their faults - anti-Semite (most likely influenced by eugenics), Gandhi’s wanting to take his “personal practices” (ie abstinence from sex but sleeping with the naked young ladies) into the political ring as a practice for India, and Einstein’s womanizing.
Now do I care? Not really, but I can appreciate what they did for change and debate areas where there were influences that were negative.
I also appreciate Liberals...can find positives and agreement in some of their policies; others, not so much...
Cog... I use “worldometers”
@White
"What has “Greta” brought to the table - herself?"
The girl is autistic , with the limits in personal and social interaction that infers. I think she has the personality of a potato. She is I think also very naive. I have no expectations of her protests actually accomplishing anything .
Greta brought a message/question/concern to youth especially world wide. The message is clear and true; our house is on fire. Action is needed NOW. Her quest has resulted on protests all over the world. However, so far the protests have not become a social movement.
I guess it's possible a social movement may grow. However, that will require power she and her followers do not yet have. It's also possible that these protests may throw up a charismatic leader with his/her eye on the main chance.
"True believers' like Greta seems to be scare me. If they are naive they lend themselves to being manipulated. If they are lucid and driven, they may be ruthless. I will not follow such people.
Right now, I think it's far too early to tell about long term effects.
PS Greta and her message remind me of the simplistic hippie philosophy of the1960's .From 17 to about 22 I was also very idealistic."Fuck the olds and their hypocrisy!" We were going to make a brave new world. We were the baby boomers. What a bang up job we did!. Our legacy is leaders such as George W Bush, Donald Trump , Boris Johnson and that KGB thug Vladimir Putin.---and a planet we are busily making uninhabitable.
I do not accept the 'great man/woman' concept of history . I think there's a realistic chance Greta may soon become irrelevant, if she hasn't already.
Thought for today: "Idealism and youthful enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery" (anon)
Cranky “ From 17 to about 22 I was also very idealistic."Fuck the olds and their hypocrisy!"
Lol...yes - this is what it appears as.
Maybe I’m naive, but I grew up with litter, ozone holes, rainforest depletion, acid rain, wide spread famine ...
advances have been made in all these areas. People care, yet there is this underlying message how “people” are to blame - corporate responsibility is satisfied via “carbon tax” (fuckin huge financial business)... hold people responsible - hold businesses responsible - have positive solutions ... but the whole fuckin’ doomsdaying, I fuckin feel like it’s “preachy” “guilt ridden” “get on board or burn” -
Hey Cranky...if history is a repeating lesson, all the hippies that turned “Wallstreet” ... lets hope these future idealists don’t turn full out cynical
@White
"Hey Cranky...if history is a repeating lesson, all the hippies that turned “Wallstreet” ... lets hope these future idealists don’t turn full out cynical'.
Pretty much what I expect. The olds**have been complaining about the young since the time of Socrates, at least. With the passage of time, all youth become the olds. If an old doesn't kill them first..
The hippies I knew personally were a bunch of bourgeois wankers at Ew-nee on daddy's dime. They would sit around at night smoking weed, drinking cheap plonk and mispronouncing didactic.
As far as I''m aware every one of 'em joined the mainstream. By 'mainstream; I mean they did the best they could with a liberal arts degree, no ambition to speak of and a modest IQ . They became teachers**, civil servants or bank clerks.
**When I was 17, my mum was 38, dad 45.
** At that time a person could become a high school teacher with a liberal arts degree in say English or History. Today one also needs a Dip ed.
IT'S still true that Australia is the only country in the world in which the terms 'academic and 'intellectual' are used as insults.