Greta Thunbergs speech

[Leo Gura]

Good stuff. She's filling the important role of shaming folks out of their complacency. Shaming is an important tactic when it comes to raising social consciousness. It worked for the civil rights movement.

The evil of the default position needs to be spelled out for people because we are like fish in water.

[StephenK]

People should refrain from telling ol' Greta about the potential for Nuclear War, militarized AI, bio-engineered viruses and bacteria, antibiotic resistance, global pandemics, asteroid impacts etc. Poor girl might end up with grey hair. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by StephenK

[andyjohnsonman]

 

[Apparition of Jack]

2 hours ago, Zizzero said:

What she says is rhetorically skilled, but philosophically boring. She doesn't add anything to the climate debate. I mean she literally repeats the same stuff the green left has been saying for as long as I can be remember; a bit of anti-capitalism here, a bit of feeling entitled to tell other people what to do there and the overly dystopic predictions that in the end always turned out to be wrong... I'm a bit worried about her too as her worldview is way too fatalistic. Stop feeding her all these apocalyptic images and let her live her life. It's one thing to fight for a movement you believe in, but don't lose yourself doing it. 
just my two cents

If you don't see the urgency at which we need to act to solve the climate crisis, that's a problem with you, not her. She may be a little bit too pessimistic, but this is a criticism from above, not below. To all the stage blue and orange politicians she's been addressing, she is way more on board with reality than they are.

This isn't meant to be a criticism of you either, I'd genuinely like for you to raise your consciousness enough where you start to take it more seriously.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Apparition of Jack

[remember]

10 hours ago, Bodigger said:

I see much fear and anger in this individual.  How is that moving toward green?  This episode isn't much different than the stuff I saw as a child.  It's NOT healthy to scare our children all the way to the psychologist.  In fact, it's already started with many children. 

it`s the seemingly quietness of the grown ups the non reactiveness and denial that makes them go to the psychologists. there is nothing worse than seing the truth while everything is silent and quiet as if hell wasn`t burning outside but only inside. worse even telling them they need a psychologist while having a healthy reaction. either we try to work on their future constructively or they will of course grow up with a worldview where they have to do the work their parents missed out on. if they don`t learn to coap with what`s coming constructively of course the worlds poison will get stuck in them and poison them from within.

Edited September 25, 2019 by remember

[abundance]

I stand with Greta.

Excellent speech. For those saying she is too young to be so worried, you obviously haven't come to grips with the full gravity of the climate crisis. This young lady speaks because the adults of this world chose to focus on their own self interest. It is us adults who fell for the propaganda of endless economic growth at the expense of the planet. When I look at teens like Greta I have tremendous hope for the future. While we were all (meaning adults) fixated on becoming millionaires, it is her generation that may bring about the social/political change we finally need. 

[samedm9]

She’s autistic on record..., appears to be a victim of mind control with all the hyper emotional facial contortions. Shame that people have to hide behind little kids in order for their political view points to be considered, no one feels right attacking a kid. Someone is playing a smart game. “Poor little Greta she’s so emotional”. I don’t buy it.

[outlandish]

2 hours ago, samedm9 said:

She’s autistic on record..., appears to be a victim of mind control with all the hyper emotional facial contortions. Shame that people have to hide behind little kids in order for their political view points to be considered, no one feels right attacking a kid. Someone is playing a smart game. “Poor little Greta she’s so emotional”. I don’t buy it.

Give me a break ,"victim of mind control" are you serious?

If you have a problem with what she's saying, please identify the problems in her argument rather than resorting to criticizing her facial gestures, her autism, or using vague emotional feelings you have about her as talking points.

11 hours ago, Zizzero said:

What she says is rhetorically skilled, but philosophically boring. She doesn't add anything to the climate debate. I mean she literally repeats the same stuff the green left has been saying for as long as I can be remember; a bit of anti-capitalism here, a bit of feeling entitled to tell other people what to do there and the overly dystopic predictions that in the end always turned out to be wrong... I'm a bit worried about her too as her worldview is way too fatalistic. Stop feeding her all these apocalyptic images and let her live her life. It's one thing to fight for a movement you believe in, but don't lose yourself doing it. 
just my two cents

What climate debate? There is no more of a climate "debate" than there is a debate about whether or not tobacco smoking causes cancer. She's simply putting the facts that we know about climate science in front of everyone's face, delivered with the passion of a young adult who will have to live with the consequences long after today's policy-makers are dead.

Yes, of course the world won't end if we keep polluting it. Our planet has been hammered harder and lived to tell the tale. But what kind of planet do we want to live on?

[remember]

2 hours ago, samedm9 said:

She’s autistic on record..., appears to be a victim of mind control with all the hyper emotional facial contortions. Shame that people have to hide behind little kids in order for their political view points to be considered, no one feels right attacking a kid. Someone is playing a smart game. “Poor little Greta she’s so emotional”. I don’t buy it.

you think autistic people don`t have emotions? maybe she`s exactly because of that so fearless because she`s able to skip the social pressure, someone inflicts upon her by talking about marginalities like her being such a poor little creature, she maybe will not be affected by that. she`s supposedly not only autistic but seeing much more of the connections in her field of special abilities. if her heart wasn`t with her she would not even be able to love all the shit she has to take upon it. also autism is extremely different in people, how do you know what is controlling her mind if you can`t see what her heart pounds for, maybe she can remember every picture she ever saw maybe she is like a human super computer who realizes what you can not even imagine because your heart pounds mostly for monkey business. maybe an autist is not a psychopath, maybe her tears are real.  emotions are really different in people. if you are only used to buy things of course it`s difficult to buy into it.

[Forestluv]

12 hours ago, Zizzero said:

What she says is rhetorically skilled, but philosophically boring. She doesn't add anything to the climate debate. 

From some Orange perspectives, she doesn't add much to the debate. As well, to Climate Change deniers - she doesn't add much to the debate.

I find the dynamic within Orange is super interesting to me. A portion of Orange leans toward hyper-individualism/libertarian and hyper-captialism. Yet another portion of Orange highly values science, evidence and rational thought. These two are at odds: one side of Orange is positioned to deny Climate Change evidence, while the other side of Orange is positioned to accept Climate Change evidence. I work in a science department and all of my Orange colleagues are on the science side accepting the scientific and material evidence. From a scientific perceptive, denying Climate Change is on par with denying that the earth is round. . .  Then I get online and see tons of Orange on the libertarian/corporate side denying Climate Change. I don't think I've observed such a worldwide dichotomy within an SD stage. 

I'm surprised by how many climate change deniers are on the forum. I thought the average conscious level was higher. . . 

From Green/Yellow/Turquoise perspectives, she adds a lot to the debate. And it's about time. . . 

 

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Good stuff. She's filling the important role of shaming folks out of their complacency. Shaming is an important tactic when it comes to raising social consciousness. It worked for the civil rights movement.

The evil of the default position needs to be spelled out for people because we are like fish in water.

This is exactly what I meant in my post earlier about outrage mobs playing an important role in human society.

They have their place. They enforce taboos, so that people don't commit those same behaviors.

Why was it different when I supported shaming Trudeau for his ignorance and callousness toward marginalized communities? 

 

 

[SoothedByRain]

Ecodharma - David Loy

[Jonac]

I think she's amazing little girl. She will arribe in my country in december 2nd, I hope to see her. 

[Forestluv]

Some imagery of climate change from a scientific perceptive. . . Imagine adding two types of chemicals together in a test tube. Chemists can build models of the chemical structures and how the chemicals interact with each other. They can predict the output of the chemical reactions. An accurate model will predict actual output. This is a contracted example. If we expand our consciousness, we can imagine a giant mass of chemicals interacting within a test tube we call earth. This is much more complex and requires higher level scientific models. Scientists began constructing scientific models in the late 70s, early 80s - yet didn't have enough data and algorithmic power to construct highly accurate models. By the late 1980s to early 1990s science was advanced enough to create accurate models. These models have been "tested" in real life over the last 30 years and have been quite accurate: the climate changes predicted have occurred. Now in 2019, the scientific models are even more accurate with higher predictive power. . . Denying climate change and these models is like someone in Florida saying "Yea, the scientists say a class five hurricane will hit the coast tomorrow, but I'm not a "doom and gloom" kinda guy. I don't think the storm will be as bad as predicted. I'm gonna hang out here on the coast. . . "

[Robi Steel]

Are you serious?

This is shameful in my eyes, there is a reason we don't put 16yo children to preach us the truth about the climate change world ending. this girl is diagnosed with anxiety disorder and asperger-syndrom. her parents clearly should intervene with her decision to ditch school and become climate activist, she cleary does not know what she is talking about and has been fed dystopian propaganda and making up all this drama

she said herself, "she is supposed to be in school", yes, that would have been probably  for her, where all her friends are. and not the people that constantly encourage her to be this messiah and the justification for these good-doers in goverment. 

i repeat, i do not agree at all. this is a clear regressive and self-destructive, unproductive aspect of stage green. 

greta probably wanted a longer childhood with people who tell her positive stories and build up her strength. 

by all conditions, she is going through alot, she is a teenager, everything must be happening at once for her, why would you let her make such radical life decisions

[Zigzag Idiot]

On 9/23/2019 at 1:48 PM, Dwarniel said:

 

I'm just going to leave this here. This speech gave me chills. 

My gut feeling is that she truly feels her feelings and in that way, she is awakened. But she's not Realized because of the nonregocnition she's speaking to a crowd who the majority of are completely dead inside.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Zigzag Idiot

[StephenK]

@Serotoninluv The problem in my opinion is that climate change is not an object that people can point to, touch and smell. When you can't show people something tangible, they're not inclined to believe it. I think humans have a hard time understanding long term existential threats. This is probably also why we're inclined to be hyper aware of things that can immediately kill us, but things like obesity, heart-disease, unmanaged anxiety  and poor diet are ignored, even though they're objectively long term risks to our lives.

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Why was it different when I supported shaming Trudeau for his ignorance and callousness toward marginalized communities? 

Some thoughts that come to mind and my personal experience:

Everyone has subconscious biases and prejudices. Yet we are not aware of them at a conscious level. I've done a lot of introspection and have gone through training to reveal subconscious biases. I've lived in foreign villages to immerse myself in culture to reveal my subconscious biases. I've dated outside my race and immersed myself in very different communities to reveal my subconscious biases. Part of what was revealed to me was conditioned subconscious biases from my upbringing. For example, my parents often mocked the speaking patterns of inner city black people. They were very particular about speaking properly - proper annunciation and grammar - because we don't want to sound like "those people". Now my parents never overtly said "Those inner city black people are stupid and not as good as us - you don't want to be like them". However, the was the subconscious conditioning I received. . . Through my adult life, I have never consciously judged a person speaking "improper" English as being stupid or lesser than me. In fact, it was the opposite. Consciously, I thought that everyone is equal and there is no "proper" way to speak English. Yet after a lot of consciousness work, I became conscious of this subconscious bias. I was now able to observe my subconscious perception/interpretation when I heard people from certain groups speaking "improper" English. There was subconscious judgement I was now aware of. It was a form of racism. I then saw how this subconscious bias led me to treat some of my black and brown students with subtle biases. This was extremely uncomfortable for me to look at. I went through a period of denial, then hyper-self criticism. And I couldn't stop this subconscious judgement. It kept appearing. . . So, should I be shamed for this? Should a mob have come after me and shamed me "You are a racist!!! How can you call yourself a teacher, you racist!!! You should lose your job!! I'm going to post your racism on social media". I can tell you that if I was shamed, it would not have helped. I don't know for sure what would have happened, yet it wouldn't have been pretty. .  . Thank goodness, there were people that didn't shame me. I was able to talk about this with a few of my colleagues. And they were like "Oh yea, that's subconscious racism - we all have it. We can help you work through it. After you work through it, perhaps you can help others work through it". And I worked through it. I've now studied the neuroscience of subconscious racism and teach it in my neuroscience course. I help students to become aware of their subconscious racism and I will absolutely NOT shame them. Shaming them would be the absolute worst environment. We need to have a safe environment for people to discover their subconscious racism and to evolve through it. There is already intense resistance against people looking at their own subconscious racism. In this context, shaming is highly counter-productive. . . However shaming has it's place in another context. If I realized my subconscious bias and didn't do anything about it and continued to be racially insensitive - shaming can be productive. 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, StephenK said:

@Serotoninluv The problem in my opinion is that climate change is not an object that people can point to, touch and smell. When you can't show people something tangible, they're not inclined to believe it. 

There is a ton of tangible evidence that people can observe. Point to and touch. Melted glaciers and ice sheets. Rising temperatures. Warmer waters. Death of coral reefs - on and on and on. The predictions from years past are all coming true. Some people don't want to accepts these tangible things for various reasons. Some don't want to put in the effort, some don't trust science, some don't want to change, some want to consume the planet for personal power and profit, some want to "own the libs". 

I was traveling through Alaska a couple years ago and noticed a lot of observatory stations for tourists were shut down and decaying. Why? Well, these were observatory stations for glaciers and ice sheets. After they melted away, the tourists stopped coming. . . Twenty years ago, scientists predicted they will melt away within twenty years. . . How is this not tangible? . . . To me, it's more about denial. I met other tourists in Alaska that said "Oh no, that's not global warming. That's just how weather is - sometimes there are a few hot years. . . "

As well, worldwide average temperatures keep hitting record highs (consistent with scientific models). This is tangible. Everyone understands what temperature is. Yet in my home state, there is an occasional cold snap. Some people in my town will say "It's snowing in October!! Global warming is a hoax!!!". When I tell them that average wordwide temperature keeps hitting new record highs year after year, they scoff at me. To me, this isn't a lack of tangible things, it is a denial of those tangible things. 

 

[StephenK]

@Serotoninluv And then the same people will say, "but it's been pretty chilly here this winter, so I don't know about this climate change thing". Or they'll point to the fact that the climate changed in the past. Again, climate change has no particular location, no particular temperature, no particular color, shape, sound. It is a very real, but abstract thing. Most people can't process these abstractions in my opinion.