Greta Thunbergs speech

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, StephenK said:

@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.

I would consider this a very low level of cognitive processing - like you say, some people do not have this basic cognitive ability. Yet, I think most people do. I think most people are denying it, either consciously or subconsciously. And some people, like those in the fossil fuel industry, will try to mislead low conscious people through various strategies - just like the tobacco industry did. And more recently, just like the pharmaceutical industry during the opiod crisis. 

One thing I like about Greta is how she speaks truth to power and says "You know the harm you are doing and you continue to do so for power and profit at the expense of my generation. My generation will never forget or forgive you". I hope some day, gen z will hold egregious climate change offenders accountable for their actions. Similar to how the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries were held accountable. 

[Bodigger]

I live in Wisconsin and a couple weeks ago I was thinking that it would have been nice to have a warmer August for my vegetable garden, but it sure was comfortable.  A week later, as I was watching the news and they said it was the second warmest August on record.  I am having trouble believing this and wonder if the science could be skewed.  I think science can easily be skewed, and is in some cases to meet certain objectives.  I've seen this in my line of work and it usually comes down to...........money. 

I don't think it is good that we use children in such ways and let them out of school to protest.  They need to grow up and give thought to things but it is not necessary for them to get involved until they are cognitively secure.  I see how much we learned about our environment and we continue to do better things, but I do wonder, why didn't Greta go to India, or China.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

I live in Wisconsin and a couple weeks ago I was thinking that it would have been nice to have a warmer August for my vegetable garden, but it sure was comfortable.  A week later, as I was watching the news and they said it was the second warmest August on record.  I am having trouble believing this and wonder if the science could be skewed.  I think science can easily be skewed, and is in some cases to meet certain objectives.  I've seen this in my line of work and it usually comes down to...........money. 

I don't think it is good that we use children in such ways and let them out of school to protest.  They need to grow up and give thought to things but it is not necessary for them to get involved until they are cognitively secure.  

I don't think this is the best way to frame it. This frame starts off with a personal anectdote "In my home state, it felt relatively cool to me - yet it was reported as the second hottest August on record. Maybe the science is skewed. Science is often skewed".

This uses a personal anecdotal experience (August felt warm to me) to plant a seed of doubt in a news report. This is then extrapolated to plant a seed of doubt in the integrity of overall climate science. This is then extrapolated to include intention - the climate science data is fraudulent in an effort to make money. So we go from "August in my hometown felt cool to me" to climate science is skewed and used manipulatively to make money. It's a weak argument. A stronger argument would to read and critique the actual science and to show that the data does not support the conclusions. Then, to show that the data was manipulated for nefarious purposes. This is a much much higher bar than "August felt cool to me". . . Many people have spent a lot of time critiquing the climate science data - even organizations trying to prove it wrong. Nobody has. It's solid. . . Your argument is a mild form of a conspiracy theory.

From here, a poorly grounded assumption is used partially to undercut efforts of climate advocates. (If the science is skewed and used manipulatively, this would diminish the significance of climate advocates). A further frame is added: "I don't think it is good that we use children in such ways and let them out of school in protest. . . This assumes that children are being used immorally to promote a bullshit cause perpetrated by crooked scientists and people looking to profit off of others through their lies. 

If the underlying assumptions are true - then of course this would be wrong. It would be wrong to make up a bullshit story, manipulate people, and put children through trauma as we use them as pawns to make money. . . The problem with the frame is that it has very little grounding and is easily deconstructed with some critical thinking. 

[Scholar]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I hope some day, gen z will hold egregious climate change offenders accountable for their actions. Similar to how the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries were held accountable. 

Would you include people themselves too, who actively deny climate change, or just the industries as a whole? Do you think there should be consequences for people who consciously acted in their self interest despite knowing of the impact they have on the climate?

[Bodigger]

I think they are using children as pawns because it has proven to difficult to make the case to adults who can think for themselves.  The reason I made the personal observation is that I have been an outdoorsman in work and play my whole life.  When it is said that this was the second warmest August on record and I am thinking it was one of the cooler August's I can recall, I have questions.  People can think for themselves, no..... 

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I think they are using children as pawns because it has proven to difficult to make the case to adults who can think for themselves.  The reason I made the personal observation is that I have been an outdoorsman in work and play my whole life.  When it is said that this was the second warmest August on record and I am thinking it was one of the cooler August's I can recall, I have questions.  People can think for themselves, no..... 

You do realize that it being the warmest August on record means that it was the warmest world-wide, not in every single location on the planet. That's not how climate works. You are confusing local weather with climate.

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I think they are using children as pawns because it has proven to difficult to make the case to adults who can think for themselves.  The reason I made the personal observation is that I have been an outdoorsman in work and play my whole life.  When it is said that this was the second warmest August on record and I am thinking it was one of the cooler August's I can recall, I have questions.  People can think for themselves, no..... 

You are conflating a personal subjective experience with scientific evidence. There is value in personal subjective experience, yet here you are conflating it to a larger objective context. This would be like saying "I am 6'0' tall and most of the men in my town are over 6'0' tall. I read a scientific study that the average height of men in the U.S. is 5'9'. This doesn't seem right to me. I think the scientists are skewing data and manipulating us to make profits". This is dismissing a wide range scientific study of empirical data due to personal anectodal evidence. 

In this context, "thinking for myself" is a personal subjective experience that is a contracted view. The more expanded view is to look at larger studies. Here, "thinking for myself" would be to read and critically evaluate the scientific studies and determine if the scientists' conclusions are supported by the data. 

Does science have 100% integrity? Of course not. There are pockets of corruption in science. Yet your frame is binary in that one must either accept all the science or none of the science. If we analyzed thousands of climate studies with a fine tooth comb, could we find data that was misrepresented? Of course. Yet as a large body of peer-reviewed data, the science is very solid. 

In terms of SD, this would be a Blue perspective dismissing Orange science, data, evidence. Science can be transcended, yet the perspective you give is looking at Orange from below, not above. 

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You do realize that it being the warmest August on record means that it was the warmest world-wide, not in every single location on the planet. That's not how climate works. You are confusing local weather with climate.

Good point!

 @Bodigger!! When you say "the warmest August on record" - do you mean in your hometown, in Wisconsin, in the U.S. or world-wide. This is really important context. If by "warmest August" refers to U.S. or world-wide - that would totally recontextualize your ideas. 

[Zizzero]

5 hours ago, outlandish said:

What climate debate? There is no more of a climate "debate" than there is a debate about whether or not tobacco smoking causes cancer.

• How fast and by how much is the climate changing?
• How fast and by how much will the climate change in the future
• How much of an impact do humans have on climate change? / How different would the climate be if humans didn't exist
• How much of an impact does CO2 in particular have on climate change?
• How much are we as a species in control of the climate and how can we control or influence it
• What are the consequences of climate change? What are the benefits of it and what is the harm of it?
• Who is responsible to do something about climate change and how much of the responsibiliy lies on each of these groups or individuals?
• Where do we draw the line between freedom/autonomy and climate protection? And whose freedom are we limiting and by how much?
• And to each of these questions the follow-up: How certain are we about that? 
• How much does uncertainty change the level of necessity of taking action? For example; does the uncertainty of this topic influence our ability to justify stronger regulations on the political level?

"WhAt ClImAtE dEbAtE?"

 

@Serotoninluv   @Apparition of Jack "EvErYoNe WhO dIsAgReEs WiTh Me Is UnCoNsCiOuS" 

Sorry folks, I just felt an itch to post this. Still love you all, though 

[Forestluv]

@Zizzero

Those are nuanced questions you offer that do not seem aligned to your original statements. Be intellectually honest. 

There is no serious debate about the premise of climate change, no more than there is about whether the earth is round.  As well, there is a general consensus on degree. The questions you raise are nuances that stand upon grounded premises. 

There will always be more nuances. For example, it is accepted that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Yet, I could create dozens of nuanced questions about the mechanistic details of how smoking causes cancer, which specific chemicals in cigarettes have what specific effects, the differences between filtered and non-filtered cigarettes, how genetics relate to tobacco-induced lung cancer, secondary risks factors etc. All of these questions stand upon a grounded foundation that smoking tobacco causes cancer. These questions do not put doubt into the premise. Your original questions seemed to undercut the premise of climate change and the general consensus of degree. That is a very different context. 

Orange looking up at Green and pulling down. . . 

[Zizzero]

17 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

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Don't hide beyond nuances. That is not how you framed your original position. Be intellectually honest. 

Above you see my initial post; please tell me how I positioned myself. What you're doing right now is dishonest. 

[Forestluv]

20 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. 

This is blue/orange undercutting green: issues such as inclusion, equality, environment and on and on. A lot of us are working hard to evolve and help each other evolve. It’s like a group learning to play the piano and someone coming in and setting off firecrackers. Resistance expressed as distraction and obstruction is part of the evolution process, yet it gets tiresome. . . 

Blue/Orange criticizes Green from a very different orientation than Yellow criticizes Green. Blue/orange has resistance to green and is oriented to pull green down. Integrated Yellow has embodied green and is oriented to pull green up. Your perspective is looking up at green from blue/orange, this lacks awareness of the dynamic from a yellow perspective with green embodiment.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

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?

It's very different because on the one hand you have a serious climate catastrophe which is being made worse through denial and indifference. On the other hand you have Trudeau wearing some brown face paint at a dress up party.

Sending a mob after Trudeau is overkill. Giving a stark and impassioned speech to the UN about climate change is appropriate.

Let's get our priorities in order.

[Zizzero]

You haven't answered my question: How did I position myself? You write 

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Your original questions seemed to undercut the premise of climate change and the general consensus of degree.

This is not true, or to be more precise; this is just you assuming things about me so that I fit into the orange colored box you want to put me in. The question still stands; where did I post anything to position myself within the climate debate? The only sentence I wrote which implies a stance is the following:

20 hours ago, Zizzero said:

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... 

Here I mock the green parties that we see in various countries in the West. It does not tell you anything about my believes on the science or politics on this topic.

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is blue/orange undercutting green: issues such as inclusion, equality, environment and on and on.

Blue/Orange criticizes Green from a very different orientation than Yellow criticizes Green. Blue/orange has resistance to green and is oriented to pull green down. Integrated Yellow has embodied green and is oriented to pull green up. Your perspective is looking up at green from blue/orange, this lacks awareness of the dynamic from a yellow perspective with green embodiment.

You don't know anything about me or my motivations, so please stay away from assuming stuff and asking intellectual honesty of me just because your image of me doesn't align with what I write. 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

A lot of us are working hard to evolve and help each other evolve. It’s like a group learning to play the piano and someone coming in and setting off firecrackers. Resistance expressed as distraction and obstruction is part of the evolution process, yet it gets tiresome. . . 

Listen, I understand that my views very often aren't welcomed here which made me consider more than once whether I want to stop my activity on this forum. I typically only write stuff when I feel like I'm qualified to offer something and when it feels like it needs to be said. On one hand, I know that I did in fact help some people on here understand certain topics better, show a new perspective or gave good advice. Then again, if I'm perceived as the lighter of firecrackers in a piano lesson, then I also think that I should respect that Leo and most others on here have a different idea on what direction the right direction to evolve towards is than me. This is your forum, not mine and it's not my intention to disturb the harmony in here. I mean what's the point of even writing something in here when I know beforehand that people will dismiss it as unconscious even though I perceive it to be a blind spot for the echo chamber in here? Idk, I'm open for feedback. Will probably think about this the next few days; it sounds like something interesting to contemplate...

[Emerald]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's very different because on the one hand you have a serious climate catastrophe which is being made worse through denial and indifference. On the other hand you have Trudeau wearing some brown face paint at a dress up party.

Sending a mob after Trudeau is overkill. Giving a stark and impassioned speech to the UN about climate change is appropriate.

Let's get our priorities in order.

Climate change is certainly the number one issue that effects everyone. But racism is a serious issue as well. And failing to hold Trudeau's feet to the fire and being an apologist for him, sends a message to all of society that his actions are okay and not a big deal. When in reality, these types of actions do harm people.

You only see it as overkill because you're not grasping the effect these types of behaviors have on marginalized groups.

Also, as I already said, it's not just an isolated instance of someone wearing black-face. It's reflected in his governance and attitude. 

But even if it were an isolated incident, it would still be worth calling out. And especially with your platform, you should consider that your attitude toward this issue has more weight than the average person.

If you shrug your shoulders and dismiss this as irrelevant or "par for the course", you are sending a message to all who follow you to do the same.

So, it's not just as simple as smudging some make-up on their face. These mocking behaviors are actually very harmful and perpetuate all kinds of stereotypes. And if we give it a pass (especially from a world leader) and open the door for this type of behavior, other more serious forms of racism and willful forms of racism will take more of a foothold in society.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Emerald

[Hansu]

I love the way how Greta speaks. She overacts so much!

I used to fantasize about speaking to large amount of people about political things that touched me when I was a kid and in my imagination I would overact just as badly as she

Thats why I know it comes from her heart

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, it's not just as simple as smudging some make-up on their face. These mocking behaviors are actually very harmful and perpetuate all kinds of stereotypes. And if we give it a pass (especially from a world leader) and open the door for this type of behavior, other more serious forms of racism and willful forms of racism will take more of a foothold in society.

I agree that racism is still a problem.

But I don't think it's right to ruin Trudeau's career for make up he wore to a party 15 years ago.

I feel the voters of Canada can sort that out. It's been made public so now people can render their verdict at the ballot box.

Don't forget there are worse candidates in Canada than Trudeau who might win if he is tarred and feathered out of town. Canadian nationalism seems to be on the rise and a Trump-like Canadian president is not out of the realm of possibility, who would make Trudeau look like an angel.

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I agree that racism is still a problem.

But I don't think it's right to ruin Trudeau's career for make up he wore to a party 15 years ago.

I feel the voters of Canada can sort that out. It's been made public so now people can render their verdict at the ballot box.

Don't forget there are worse candidates in Canada than Trudeau who might win if he is tarred and feathered out of town.

It's not about ruining his career. It's actually quite rare that a politicians career is ruined by public shaming or outrage... and that's true even when the transgression is extreme enough to deserve losing a career over.

That said, they do have to contend with shaming and the collective potential for outrage pointed at them. So, it acts as a pressuring force... not just for the public figure but for everyone watching him/her as an example. 

Few people can stomach the idea of public scorn. That's why it's such a useful deterrent to the masses engaging in unconscious/ignorant behavior that they otherwise would have had no issue engaging in. 

So, it's not about making Justin Trudeau lose his job.

It's about not just shrugging off blackface and the other problematic aspects of him as unimportant or undeserving of focus or criticism. And just treating them as business as usual instead of actually holding him accountable for his actions. 

And the way to hold him accountable is to hold him accountable in the eyes of the public. 

If he finds himself in the corner of collective scorn for a few weeks or months with a dunce cap on in the eyes of the world, he'll have to be very reticent about how he treats racial issues going forward. And that's the point.

The wisest thing that we can do is understand that collective dynamics and shaming is a great way to take powerful figures to task for regressive behaviors. And it sends a message to everyone about what will and won't be tolerated, making it more socially uneasy and difficult to express racism (or anything else that causes problems).

And I just think it's very unwise to just treat it as normal and no big deal and to reduce it down to the surface level action of smudging brown paint on lighter colored skin. Because the reality is that it's so much more than that.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Emerald

[Forestluv]

@Zizzero I'm trying to convey a different perspective. It's not simply intellectual, so it can be difficult to describe. It can be difficult to show a person their position when they are immersed within that position. It would involve stepping out of that position to view it. In terms of SD, it would be like Orange asking to be shown their position from a Green/Yellow perspective using Orange logic. It's hard to do and I'm still learning how to do it - and at times I am unable to (such as in this case). The most effective way would be for the person to let go of attachment/identification and view the dynamics from an unattached/unidentified lens.

Regarding the term "intellectual honesty": in hindsight my usage of that term was counter-productive. From one's own relative perspective, they are intellectually honest. It wasn't the best way to phrase it. 

[mandyjw]

@Emerald No one can actually shame anyone else because shame is a feeling. It's as ridiculous as saying that you can "happy" someone or "sad" someone. You can't. Trump is a great example of a shameless leader. No amount of shame is going to change how he feels about himself, in fact the more people try the more he is emboldened. The higher you go on the scale of consciousness, (until a certain point of ego dissolution that is), the more intensely shame is going to be felt by someone. Shame paralyzes such people in fear. The people who have the biggest hearts and feel the most intensely are afraid of speaking out. They are afraid of making waves, they are afraid of making the mistakes they have to make in order to evolve and grow. Shame only inhibits the good in someone. And repression grows like a weed under shame. Do you really want to repress racism? I think the results would be tragic. 

If you want courageous confident kids, you don't use shame as a parenting tool. A democracy should use the same values in "parenting" its leaders. 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by mandyjw