3 ms·

Okay and? We all know she is a media darling. She's also been guided by professionals since the very beginning.

atoav 7y ago
> We all know she is a media darling. So what do you suggest? Bright spotlights and a hard chair? A smoking interviewer with a deep voice who makes her regret she even dared to start thinking about the whole thing? For me Greta Thunberg is mostly a moral figure. Somebody who convincingly claims they have a stake in the message they carry. This is the reason why I am not that much interested in her – I don't really need any convincing on that topic. And because she is a moral figure, everything starts to make a lot more sense when you see the whole Pro- and Anti-Greta followership through a moralistic lense. The former ones are the ones who needed her push to stand up or who feel they have to defend her and the latter ones feel their own moral self image threatened because there comes a child who tells them they are not as good as a person as they thought they were. And when somebody tells you that, attacking their character is _always_ easier than changing your view of the world and your place in it. It is quite predictable in it's entirety, but that makes it fascinating in my eyes.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Exactly that moralistic viewpoint powers the nonsense I'm talking about. I think it's creepy that faceless actors are using a child to push a message, but she is a focal point for Good Morals. The official narrative is that she is a precocious lone wolf climate crusader social prodigy, which is useful to the entrenched activists handling her because it saves them all the work of scientifically refuting climate deniers; now they can be simply painted as bullies. But because she is a moral icon, even pointing out the institutional backing behind her viral status is a form of heresy.
  - atoav 7y ago
    Tbh I think the truth is somewhere in between and much more complicated than it is usally painted especially in the anglosphere (which has turned extremely tribal in the UK and US over the past decade). She apparently got her first contact with climate groups through a writing contest where she wrote on climate change/climate politics, so her motivation was prexisting. Whether they use her or she used them (or it was some kind of symbiosis or a cold blooded deal) would be hard to quantify objectively, especially if she has similar political goals than her, so I'd be careful with assumptions, especially if they make you sound like you go for an ad hominem attack. I remember myself als a 16 year old, I was definitly not unpolitical, quite the opposite and manipulating me into supporting something I didn't like would have been quite hard back then, maybe harder even harder than now. Of course viewing her as a lone wolf is completely nuts and I am quite sure neither herself nor the people who started the school protests in her wake would subscribe to that notion (at least I heard it beeing discussed by some Fridays for Future kids in Germany). This is obviously a media narrative by journalists who got carried away. On the other hand claiming that she is "pushed around by faceless actors" is also a bit bland. Firstly if these actors weren't faceless but well known they wouldn't have to rely on somebody else to push messages out, secondly I'd argue that this symbolic action is far better than the alternative (something like flying drones over Heathrow Airport to get media attention), thirdly if "faceless actors" in the background worry you, there are much much better targets to attack (e.g. the UK prime minister, industry lobbyists in the US, etc.) The topics she is speaking onare certainly not the ones that have a incredibly powerful lobby behind it (in terms on lobbying money spent), so if we speak of "creepy faceless actors" behind her, you can assume the actors on the opposite site are tenfold as creepy and faceless, certainly profit from discrediting the person and there is historical evidence that they exist, profit from it and use their influence. All that aside. The future generations have a valid moral argument. We have known about global warming since half a century and did nothing – the opposite, in the wake of neoliberalism that followed the fall of the soviet union we made everything even more about profits than before. And now we are like that procrastinating kid that pushed homework away and tries to do it while the steps of the approaching teacher echo through the hallway: the only way to get out of this seems to break our own hand to be sent of to the nurse. From an outside perspective this is totally irrational behaviour unless there is proof that the reality looks different altogether. But there is no such proof, which is why the persons are attacked instead of their ideas. Not liking somebodies moral standpoint is a very weak defense when they stand for the wellbeing of many future generations and the survival of mankind.

> We all know she is a media darling. So what do you suggest? Bright spotlights and a hard chair? A smoking interviewer with a deep voice who makes her regret she even dared to start thinking about the whole thing? For me Greta Thunberg is mostly a moral figure. Somebody who convincingly claims they have a stake in the message they carry. This is the reason why I am not that much interested in her – I don't really need any convincing on that topic. And because she is a moral figure, everything starts to make a lot more sense when you see the whole Pro- and Anti-Greta followership through a moralistic lense. The former ones are the ones who needed her push to stand up or who feel they have to defend her and the latter ones feel their own moral self image threatened because there comes a child who tells them they are not as good as a person as they thought they were. And when somebody tells you that, attacking their character is _always_ easier than changing your view of the world and your place in it. It is quite predictable in it's entirety, but that makes it fascinating in my eyes.

homonculus1 7y ago
Exactly that moralistic viewpoint powers the nonsense I'm talking about. I think it's creepy that faceless actors are using a child to push a message, but she is a focal point for Good Morals. The official narrative is that she is a precocious lone wolf climate crusader social prodigy, which is useful to the entrenched activists handling her because it saves them all the work of scientifically refuting climate deniers; now they can be simply painted as bullies. But because she is a moral icon, even pointing out the institutional backing behind her viral status is a form of heresy.
- atoav 7y ago
  Tbh I think the truth is somewhere in between and much more complicated than it is usally painted especially in the anglosphere (which has turned extremely tribal in the UK and US over the past decade). She apparently got her first contact with climate groups through a writing contest where she wrote on climate change/climate politics, so her motivation was prexisting. Whether they use her or she used them (or it was some kind of symbiosis or a cold blooded deal) would be hard to quantify objectively, especially if she has similar political goals than her, so I'd be careful with assumptions, especially if they make you sound like you go for an ad hominem attack. I remember myself als a 16 year old, I was definitly not unpolitical, quite the opposite and manipulating me into supporting something I didn't like would have been quite hard back then, maybe harder even harder than now. Of course viewing her as a lone wolf is completely nuts and I am quite sure neither herself nor the people who started the school protests in her wake would subscribe to that notion (at least I heard it beeing discussed by some Fridays for Future kids in Germany). This is obviously a media narrative by journalists who got carried away. On the other hand claiming that she is "pushed around by faceless actors" is also a bit bland. Firstly if these actors weren't faceless but well known they wouldn't have to rely on somebody else to push messages out, secondly I'd argue that this symbolic action is far better than the alternative (something like flying drones over Heathrow Airport to get media attention), thirdly if "faceless actors" in the background worry you, there are much much better targets to attack (e.g. the UK prime minister, industry lobbyists in the US, etc.) The topics she is speaking onare certainly not the ones that have a incredibly powerful lobby behind it (in terms on lobbying money spent), so if we speak of "creepy faceless actors" behind her, you can assume the actors on the opposite site are tenfold as creepy and faceless, certainly profit from discrediting the person and there is historical evidence that they exist, profit from it and use their influence. All that aside. The future generations have a valid moral argument. We have known about global warming since half a century and did nothing – the opposite, in the wake of neoliberalism that followed the fall of the soviet union we made everything even more about profits than before. And now we are like that procrastinating kid that pushed homework away and tries to do it while the steps of the approaching teacher echo through the hallway: the only way to get out of this seems to break our own hand to be sent of to the nurse. From an outside perspective this is totally irrational behaviour unless there is proof that the reality looks different altogether. But there is no such proof, which is why the persons are attacked instead of their ideas. Not liking somebodies moral standpoint is a very weak defense when they stand for the wellbeing of many future generations and the survival of mankind.