5 ms·

> I honestly don't understand, can someone explain? She's a woman, she's young, she's autistic. She faces a triple-whammy of discrimination because of that.

• GaryNumanVevo 7y ago
  I'd think pointing out uncomfortable truths about our world play a big role in that too
• leereeves 7y ago
  Brilliant strategy, making a young autistic woman the face of the climate apocalypse movement. Now any disagreement with the movement can be dismissed with allegations of discrimination instead of discussing the issue.
  • yongjik 7y ago
    Well, maybe if the world listened to actual climate scientists, Nobel laureates, NASA and its satellite data, or even freaking Al Gore, we wouldn't have come to this. But people didn't listen - or rather, enough people didn't listen, and now we have to listen to a young autistic teenager girl berating us for sitting idle while the world burns (metaphorically speaking), and IMHO we all deserve it, and you'd better get used to it, because that's not even the remotely worse part of the climate change.
    • leereeves 7y ago
      > while the world burns (metaphorically speaking) Here's where you lose me. I don't see a world burning, and past predictions of coming apocalypse have proven false. Yes, the world is warming. We're going back to the temperature of the world a few million years ago, still much cooler than it was during most of the history of life on Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
      • yongjik 7y ago
        Protip: If you have to argue the Earth was warmer "a few million years ago", you've lost the argument.
        • leereeves 7y ago
          Not even worth responding to. That kind of low-effort comment doesn't belong here. (My original response didn't belong either, so I edited it.)
          • dragonwriter 7y ago
            > If your argument is that returning to temperatures a few millions years ago is apocalypse, you've lost the ability to reason. As humans did not live on Earth a few million years ago, insofar as human society is concerned, why would the fact that temperatures had previously occurred a few million years ago be even slightly inconsistent with them being apocalyptic?
            • leereeves 7y ago
              Close relatives of humans have lived on Earth for much longer. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I'm betting they required similar climate conditions.
              • dragonwriter 7y ago
                That they lived when the climate was significantly different and were replaced when it became more like current climate is evidence otherwise (it's not, in and of itself, conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.)
                • NeedMoreTea 7y ago
                  They also weren't trying to hold together an advanced technological society. Survival on the margins of existence may be possible long after society as we know it is in ruins.
  • seppin 7y ago
    > Now any disagreement with the movement If you disagree with the most overwhelming conclusion in the scientific community since gravity, your problems go way beyond simple discrimination.
  • manicdee 7y ago
    It’s the climate denial it’s that made her the face of climate advocacy, mostly because climate denialists are also ableist and sexist science-deniers.
• repolfx 7y ago
  Since when is she autistic? Autistic people don't get up on stage, go on live TV, speak eloquently and go on round the world sailing trips. I don't understand this recent push to dilute the word "autistic" into meaninglessness. What shall we call the poor people who sit on the floor flapping their hands because they're overwhelmed by the world around them? She's also calmly reminding people that climate change is real People don't need reminding. They heard nothing else for decades. It's not like it just slipped people's minds. A hypocritical little girl (not a woman), with no experience of the world, is not going to suddenly get everyone to stop using cars or flying in airplanes. She isn't even willing to do that herself, as her stunt with the yaught that had to be sailed back home by people who flew to the destination showed. For some reason climate change is absurdly polarised. It's polarised because it's used as a stick to try and force hard left policies on the world, so anyone who isn't hard left will naturally be suspicious that the proposed remedies are all wrong and quite possibly the problem too. This is especially true given the frequent unreliability of academics who claim to understand highly complex systems (e.g. economists), the failure of many previous predictions by climate scientists, and the near-violent hatred dished out to anyone who takes a skeptical position. Recall that Thunberg argues for reducing carbon emissions by 50% in about 10 years. She offers no ideas for how to do that without causing a total collapse of global society that kills millions of people, the very thing that climate change activists claim they're trying to avoid. It is natural for people to consider that unhelpful at best, or self-promoting BS at worst. Why wouldn't people find her polarising? In the end the only people who can really make a difference here are scientists and engineers. Thunberg is neither. She has literally nothing to contribute and should go back to school.
  • samantohermes 7y ago
    Autism is a spectrum (or a ballpark): http://pseudoexpertise.com/ch-7.pdf http://pseudoexpertise.com/ch-7.pdf
• throwaway744678 7y ago
  > She's a woman, she's young, she's autistic. She faces a triple-whammy of discrimination because of that. ...No she does not. In this context, one would argue that, on the contrary she benefits from these. Would she have had the same journey, had she been a 50 year old "regular" (non autistic) man? No one would have cared.
  • johnchristopher 7y ago
    What the... The point of this topic is basically that she's or should be irrelevant because of her age or her Asperger and now you say it's an advantage... You can't have both.