How likely is she to be elected there in the next decade ? Would be quite ironic to have the officer who removed the today to welcome her in a decade
It’s a little counter-intuitive, but she probably feels like she’s more helpful in her current role than she would be in politics. A politician has to be a jack-of-all-trades, learning about a lot of different fields, dealing with education, military, civil law, budget, etc etc etc. Where an activist can specialize exclusively in one thing, gaining a lot of clout and helping provide leadership.
Global climate activism has long needed a leader, its own Mahatma Gandhi. Now its getting one, and it leaves her very, very influential. She can’t be thrown out of office either, she could only be assassinated, which would turn her into a martyr like Navalny. So, she’s steadily growing powerful and is virtually unstoppable right now.
She probably wants to keep it that way. Getting elected would derail that a little bit, and having these kinds of non-governmental civil leaders is actually very important.
That’s almost what Jon Stewart said about him running for office. He feels he does more useful work outside of politics.
Yea, everyone thinks politicians need those skills, but do the current bout of politicians even have those skills, either?!
There seems to be an assumed competency that doesn’t match reality.
I think a greater problem is that some of them actually are. In this case, they’ll know more than the average citizen about a given issue, with a certain understanding of the nuance and complexity that the citizen, with mainly just access to major media, lacks. This makes their decisions look strange to us, in the same way someone might wonder “why did the engineer design this this way? makes no sense to me.”
Additionally, since they’re also knowledgeable about a lot of other considerations, they’ll have to balance them against each other, where even a highly-knowledgeable specialist might not fully understand the reasons something cannot be done yet.
Lastly, they have to win re-election, so they have to balance all of that against normal people’s perceptions and ignorant opinions. All this balancing is going to naturally make them seem very out-of-touch with an average citizen.
And that’s just any good ones. You also have plenty of crazy ideologues running around these days, that actually want to undermine democracy and seize greater power, or want some unchecked laissez-faire system or whatever. People whose faith has blinded them to reason and rationality.
All that said, politics has always been messy and ugly, that’s inherent. The only alternatives open the door for unchecked corruption to run things, like Russia deals with. As Churchill said, democracy is terrible. It’s just that everything else is a lot worse.
You see, you’re engaging in the assumed competency right now.
They DO NOT magically know more about an industry than the professionals in those industries. Ever. Period. Their decisions don’t make sense because they’re corrupted morons, not competent legislators. They do not know the intricacies of the bills they pass nor their impact most of the time.
While politicians can use skill as you describe, they don’t have to and in fact often abuse that assumed competency to hide the corruption.
“Trust me bro, this tax cut will totally trickle down! I talk to economists every day!” Assuming they are competent only hurts YOU, because it primes you to buy in to the gaslighting.
Note, I said “some”. If you think they are all terrible, you’ve likely been propagandized. I also said they’re jacks-of-all-trades, I never said they know more than a specialist about that specialist’s field. This is why they need to consult specialists. What they do know is things outside of that specialist’s field. Say, they know more about governmental budgeting than a doctor would. They know more about medicine than an economist would.
And again, some. They’re not all the same, that’s a gross and inaccurate oversimplification based on emotion.
I’m trying to point out how you are still glamourizing the job, which is the first step to buying in on their excuses. After all, you won’t ever have the “insider knowledge” they do.
You know who else has “insider knowledge”? Crypto bros, bankers, and lawyers. What do they use it for? Getting money from people.
In many cases, it’s justified such as a skilled lawyer knowing which angle will get you off the hook, but in many other cases it is not. Outwardly without that true insider knowledge, YOU have zero ability to discern who is honest and who is gaslighting.
If a metric cannot discriminate between an honest person and a gaslighter, it’s not a good metric. Politicians having “insider knowledge” is, in fact, a red herring at best. If their idea IS good, it will have FAR better justification than, “trust me bro, the lobbyists say it’ll be great.”.
What I’m saying is, the LAST thing you should do is trust a politician’s “insider knowledge”. If you want to learn how to survive prison, you don’t go asking the Warden for advice.
I don’t think its glamorizing to point out some of the nuances in the job itself. And they’re not all in some grand conspiracy or something. You can understand why a good one believes as they do, if you put in the work. You just need to learn enough about the issue to become somewhat fluent in it. Say, covid vaccines or something.
Real information, though, not just emotionally-digestible good-sounding information. It takes actual hard work, like classroom-style.
The problem with politics is that it tends to chew up and spit out people with a modicum of honesty, integrity and a moral compass. They either give up, or become corrupted to the point that they can no longer fulfill the purpose that they went into politics for.
This is generally true, but there are also many notable exceptions. Here in Germany I could name:
- Gregor Gysi
- Of the left Party
- Always does what he thinks is best for the people
- Many political opponents tried really hard to stick dirt on him and failed
- Nico Semsrott
- Arguably not that long in politics
- Took a stance against Martin Sonnenborn (who is the very popular leader of a satirical party) in an affair and is now without a party (Yes this makes it likely he will not be in the next parliament)
- As far as I have seen votes always in favor of the people
- Patrick Breyer
-Pirate Party
- fights for digital freedom and privacy since decades
- Always follows the pirate paradigm: transparency. He publishes all his meeting with lobbyists.
- Helps to educate the public and discovered quite a few hidden legislative attempts to undermine privacy
Gregor Gysi
Gysi disappointed me massively when he defended Russia in the Nawalny poisoning and speculated about who might ‘actually profit’ without the slightest shred of evidence.
In honesty I didn’t hear all his statements back then. Now from a quick search I can only find his Twitter:
„Natürlich kann es so gewesen sein, wie es @derspiegel annimmt. Es kann aber auch anders gewesen sein. Ich habe als Rechtsanwalt häufig erlebt, dass alles gegen A sprach, es war dann aber doch B.“
Which just says there should be more investigation before accusations are made. Asking for evidence. If you have a link to an interview or talk where he does as you said I would be interested to hear how he phrased it.
I want to point out one thing I have seen far to often in recent times: If a person or group of the left make a wrong statement others which previously followed them are quick to change their view and declare them as persona non grata. On the other hand we have the far right which spills out lies after lies and their followers are so used to it that even disproving them in multiple points does not touch their loyality in any way. I think we should focus more on welcoming people who try to do good thing. If they make a wrong step we should not shun them but try to show them why they did wrong. At least hey try to better themselves and you/we have a good chance to convince them of the better way.
See for example Snowden. He made the mistake to believe Russia would never invade Ukraine. An easy mistake if you have to live inside Russia propaganda machine. Upon realizing his error he was so struck by it, because he uses his social media reach to better the world and now trough a mistake he abused it for spreading propaganda, that he apologized and stopped tweeting for many months.
im MDR erklärte der ehemalige Fraktionschef und inzwischen außenpolitische Sprecher der Bundestagsfraktion, Gregor Gysi, zum Giftanschlag auf Nawalny:
“Es kann ja auch sein, dass es ein Gegner der Erdgasleitung nach Deutschland war. Oder ein beauftragter Gegner, der wusste: Wenn man einen solchen Mord inszeniert, der dann der Regierung in die Schuhe geschoben wird, führt das zur Verschlechterung der Beziehungen.”Auf einer Wahlkampf-Veranstaltung seiner Partei am gestrigen Donnerstag in Bochum sagte Gysi wörtlich:
„Der Putin muss doch bescheuert sein, wenn er sowas macht. Er weiß doch, dass das die Beziehungen zum Westen noch mehr verschlechtert.“I understand being cautious and not pre-judging before all the facts are known but what Gysi said back then went beyond that to actively dismissing the idea that it might have been Russia after all.
I have great respect for Gysi, and always did since I first listened to a campaign speech from him in the mid-90s. He’s a politician who has stuck to his principles and prevailed through adversities where many other people would have just given up. But, even if you disregard his flaws, blind spots around Russia, and the poor handling of the internal crises which have now led to a split of his party, he has hardly ever been in a position where he could truly make a change in politics. His party may have been part of the government in some German states, but he himself never has been. And this may sound cynical, but it’s relatively easy to be a principled politician when there’s not much at stake. It’s when you actually have some power and influence, that the wheat separates from the chaff - when you actually have to handle all kinds of pressure from all sides and see what your principles are worth to you.
This is not a defense of any other politicians - I wish there were way more who didn’t give up their principles at the first sign of pressure. I’m just saying that Gysi has rarely been in a position where he had to do that.
I am unfamiliar with the other two, but I would say similar concerns may apply there.
- Gregor Gysi
It’s super bizarre seeing this girl grow up exclusively by photos of her being arrested.
Punk AF
I’m out of the loop, what is she doing these days? How does she make a living?
She wrote a book that has a lot of reviews in Amazon. Arguably, that’s probably enough to allow her to continue doing activism for the time being.
Good for her, nice to hear
That and family. I mean, typical 21yo won’t take a charter flight to another continent for some eco-event.
Frankly anywhere near me in the social fabric she’s a joke, but you never know.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-thunberg-climate-change-flying-airline
Here you go, try to stay up to date. She doesn’t fly apparently.
She’s constantly doing political activism in the name of ensuring environmental policies and getting into a lot of trouble with the law because of it.
She’s not throwing tomato soup at Da Vinci, mind you, but she was present during the environmental protest occupation when Germany decided to start mining brown coal again. You’ll know it; it’s the same protest with the mud wizard meme.
For all the disgruntled people saying she’s a family funded shill she seems rather dedicated to her cause. A shill would’ve stopped ages ago when they’re no longer front page news.
Full time political activist is a legit job. But she’s only 21, at this age many people are student and don’t make any money
The force is strong, with the swedish police!
Greta has become mostly irrelevant since she got caught up in the generic SJW protest movement.
She has even protested new wind powerplants.
Had she stayed an environmental activist she would still be relevant.
I’m involved in various leftist causes and see this shit so often. Like you feel like you need to be a “thought leader” instead of just staying in your lane. Or organizations just get taken over by people who have completely antithetical agendas.
For instance I was somewhat involved in our local DSA chapter for a few years after Bernie and I’m still on the email list. They just sent out a email about organizing a “queer and transgender prom” but that in order to attend you would have to have proof of up-to-date covid vaccination.
-
Now don’t get me wrong, queer and transgender proms are great if you’re into proms, but what does it have to do with democratic socialism?
-
Why on earth is the DSA the organization that is still flying the Moderna flag in 2024? Everybody else has given up on their mostly ineffective vaccines years ago. Also last I checked Big Pharma are the bad guys!
One of the things that excited me about Bernie and groups like DSA originally is that they seemed to serve as a new and revitalized economic left focused on salient issues and rejecting identity politics. I remember one of the rally cries was “racial politics are class politics.” But now they’re basically just yet another moveon.org or something.
That is basically how I feel as well, it is fine to just focus on one thing, you don’t have to do all at once.
I wish you all the best.
-
“SJW”
WHAT YEAR IS IT?!!?
Fair, I tried to find a better word for it, but drew a blank.
Reading this made me realize that I haven’t heard that term for a long time and that I probably missused it.
I am sorry for the misstake
I mean my comment was not only making fun of the outdated phraseology, but also the idea that social justice isn’t a legitimate branch of sociological and legal change that persisted ~10-20 years ago has been far blown out of the water
“social justice warriors” - who were considered risible in 2010 have since achieved
- criminal justice reforms for youth jails
- minimum pay raises and unionization of global corps (eg Starbucks) as a direct result of Occupy, to which the entire world now talks about Bank bail outs, billionaire taxes/wealth tax, borrow-die schemes, income inequality over the breakfast table
- legal weed
- BLM instrumental in making politicians renounce stop and frisk, to the extent Bloomberg had to renounce all his policies in his presidential run
- #metoo leading to the conviction if Weinstein, and massive revolutions in the use of intimacy and consent coordinators and supervisors in entertainments Productions
- DREAM act to DACA
- rent reform in Seattle, Chicago, Denver, Long Beach, Orlando etc
- no solutions as yet but everyone is mad about gerrymandering and voter suppression every election cycle now
- New Green Deal
- Slow but incremental advances in protecting children (and indeed adults) from gun violence and the slip of power from the NRA’s influence over elected politicians
This is perfectly fair, I realize I should have used a better word/phrase to better describe my point.
Thank you for taking the time and breaking it down.
You actually need a paradigm shift mate.
Don’t remember the context, and don’t want to defend Greta, but windmills can be very bad for the environment if done wrong. Hell, everything can be bad for the environment if done wrong.
I am not complaining about windmills as a concept, I like them, they look cool, I just brought it up as a reason why Greta is hypocritical.
Right, so you’re biased and full of it. Got it.
Everyone has biases, anyone claiming not to are lying, I will absolutely admit that I am biased in some ways, I also try to recognize my bias and when it affects me and others negatively and try to compensate.
I don’t see you doing that.
I don’t see them using a bias as a defense for shitty opinions, either.
holy fuck I can smell the crusty cumsocks under your bed from here.
Why go around attacking strangers on the Internet?
If you’re having issues see a therapist, don’t take it out on other people.
You know nothing about me, apart from me finding Greta mostly irrrelevant, yet you seem to think that you know everything about me, and have started insulting me.
This is dumb, I get that we have a disagreement, but you don’t have to insult me.
Are you a mod?
how DARE she have a nuanced opinion on the matter!!1!
Her dabbling in things like the Near-East conflict absolutely hurt her cause. It’s generally not a good idea to fragment something that you’re fighting for.
That’s a pretty German exclusive perspective. German media on the near east is not only extremely one-sided, it is completely isolated in its one-sidedness.
I didn’t mean it from that point of view. It simply has nothing to do with climate issues. And it’s a controversial topic that can split the movement thus weakening it. She is the face of Fridays for Future after all.
They’re afraid to criticize Jews, bunch of pussies.
That is a fair take, just as I don’t have to like it
Respecting the rights and land of indigenous people is not protesting wind power.
Just because you don’t agree with her opinions on neo-nazis and Sami people doesn’t mean all of her opinions are suddenly wrong.
This latest protest is especially relevant, because the current government in Sweden doesn’t believe in climate change and is actively trying to violate Sweden’s international climate obligations.
I never claimed that her oppinions were all wrong, she could just have stayed outside the discussion and kept focus on the environmental issues.
I don’t think it matters. People can voice their opinion on other subjects without discrediting their opinion on climate change. This article isn’t even about Greta Thunberg’s other non-climate protests, so why are you taking focus away from environmental issues?
Climate change is an ecological, social and economical issue. You cannot reduce it to either dimension.
And you cannot solve climate change without adressing the social injustices in our societies that are excarberated by climate change, in the same way you cannot keep the economy afloat without adressing climate change.
aka Intersectionality.
Climate change is the absolute most critical issue humanity faces today.
It has to take priority over everything else.
This means building nuclear powerplants as soon as possible to enable us to close coal, gas and oil plants, it means building winmills on indegious land if that is the best place to build them.
How about we tear down your home and neighborbood and build a windfarm over it? You will also not be compensated in any way or enough. I accept no arguments here, this is literally what you’re saying is okay to do to someone else.
That is not what anyone has suggested we should do to indegious people and their homes. This type of strawman arguments are extremely counter-productive.
Exactly, this is what I mean.
So far, I have not heard that they were going to tare down the houses to build the wind farm, do you have a source about that?
You’re absolutely right and don’t deserve the animosity you’re getting in this thread.
Thank you, I mean no disrespect to anyone who are fighting for a just cause, but activism dilution is absolutely a thing I see with regards to Greta
Yeah, it’s a problem in general. People can’t be experts on everything, and most contentious issues have at least two sides and a lot of complexity. Yet a lot of people go around pushing their strong opinions on others.
It’s not that big of a deal
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The difference is that it’s not going to stop anyway because China’s not going to stop burning coal. It’s a global issue, not a local one.
Environmentalism without class struggle is just gardening (Chico Mendes)
I disagree that it is “just gardening”, it can absolutely have a huge impact.
However I do realize that the upper classes also pollute far, far more than the lower classes.
My point is that if there is a point where there is a big project that would benefit the environment, and only affect the people a small ammount while loosing a lot of potential if it was built somewhere else, then the people living in the area should not get to stop the project. Climate change will cause far, far, far more problems than the small problems that a wind farm will cause.
Yes, however there are better ways to go about stealing other peoples land to save us all. Compromises will need to be made, and ones that don’t entirely fuck over the poor need to be fought for.
Wait what is her opinion on neo-nazis?
Wikipedia says she counter-protested against NMR, which is a Swedish neo-nazi group. Not sure what other protests she has attended that aren’t climate focused.
Wow I hate that people like you exist. Please get fucking bent
You hate people who disagree with you in a niche subject?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Two officers lifted Thunberg and dragged her away before putting her down on the ground about 20 metres away from the door she had been obstructing.
Thunberg and dozens of other environmental campaigners started blocking the main entrances to Sweden’s parliament on Monday in a sit-down protest against the effects of the climate crisis and what they said was political inaction.
The activists left on Monday afternoon but returned to protest again on Tuesday morning.
Thunberg, 21, became the face of youth climate activism as her weekly protests, which started in 2018 in front of the Swedish parliament, quickly grew into a global movement with large rallies across continents.
Last year she was detained by police or removed from protests in countries including Sweden, Norway and Germany.
A British court last month acquitted her of charges of a public order offence as a judge ruled that police had no power to arrest her and others at a protest in London last year.
The original article contains 186 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 13%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
