5 ms·

> election voting choices Unfortunately, I don't believe voting one way or another will make much difference. One party might be slightly better than another,

> election voting choices Unfortunately, I don't believe voting one way or another will make much difference. One party might be slightly better than another, but ultimately none will dare to implement sufficient measures. Climate problem will have to be solved outside of party politics. We need something akin to civil rights movement. On the global scale.

hanniabu 7y ago
> We need something akin to civil rights movement. On the global scale. We also need someone other than Greta as the face of it. While she does a great job, she's often dismissed due to her age and the US president has even publicly called her retarded in the literal sense.
- docdeek 7y ago
  "...publicly called her retarded" I didn't catch that one - is there a source? All I am Googling up is Trump telling her to chill, watch a movie, and a reference to anger management.
- arrrg 7y ago
  Anyone who becomes the face of this will be relentlessly smeared, with no regard for reality. People in the streets is probably what you need.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    There's a difference between smeared and dismissed. I've even heard from people that think we need to make a change say "what does she know she's only a kid".
- roenxi 7y ago
  Greta is 16. A 16 year old brain is literally not fully developed. A global movement should be able to muster a better spokesperson than a child. No matter how earnest and scared a child may be, it is still a mistake to make major policy decisions on their say-so.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Greta was effectively chosen by the press. Yours is a standard attack line, because it allows you to pretend that it's only her saying this, and ignore all the thousands of others who've been saying similar things, from the IPCC to the Green Parties of the world.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      Then they should find a spokeswoman among all those thousands who is both charismatic and also competent. A line of attack being standard doesn't make it bad. Putting forward a child to speak to world leaders and get worked up on behalf of other children isn't going to do the movement any favours. Greta is a puppet chosen because someone cynically thinks that putting a child on stage is going to tug on people's heartstrings. They might be right, but she doesn't have anything going for her that should command respect.
      - flukus 7y ago
        It doesn't matter who they pick, deniers are great diverting attention to smearing the person to take focus away from the issue, just take a look at how many still "herp derp al gore".
        roenxi 7y ago
        It goes without saying that someone proposing we roll back our living standards and give up on the material comforts of the late modern era is going to have their character examined. It is reminiscent of the hazing process for candidates in major democratic roles. That does not make the flaws are irrelevant. She is being suggested as a leader but she is in no position to actually provide leadership. Al Gore also had a long list of problems, but he was much more respectable than Greta.
xoa 7y ago
>Unfortunately, I don't believe voting one way or another will make much difference. One party might be slightly better than another, but ultimately none will dare to implement sufficient measures. Then you are simply giving up on the whole thing? Because there is no other way to make much difference. If the current party platforms aren't sufficient, then those who care must first work to change those too. Become party members, work to select delegates that will then change it, etc. Same as any other democracy, regardless of details (in the US "party" (coalition) platforms and choices are determined by primaries before the country decides which one will assume government). >Climate problem will have to be solved outside of party politics. We need something akin to civil rights movement. On the global scale. It can't emphasized enough how completely, utterly wrong this is. Solving collective action problems requires coordinated use of power, which by definition is politics. Regardless of how the politics gets changed, it still will ultimately depend on politics. It's not some dirty word or concept, it's a descriptive/truism, when you work to get groups of humans to do something you're doing politics. It is our great good fortune, built on a mountain of blood a treasure, that so many of us live in democracies where it is so easy relative to history to work for radical political change through parties and government structures. You mention the civil rights movement, but that ONLY WORKED THROUGH POLITICS. There seems to have been a huge forgetting in modern times that protest movements and the like are only means to a political end, not constructive in and of themselves. The civil rights movement had organized leadership that used the protests to mobilize voters, to gain public interest and recognition, etc., all with the ultimate aim of changing politicians/parties and actually getting actual for real legislation passed. They worked to the extent they translated into votes and in turn into actual power. Conversely, consider all sorts of modern disorganized protests, no matter the size. It's perfectly possible to spend enormous amounts of time, effort, and resources and accomplish absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's a very dangerous and corrosive form of virtue signaling, and can actively harm progress because it burns people's limited capital to no useful end. And that in turn helps further breed disengagement, because people feel "they did something" "yet nothing happened". But "doing something" doesn't mean it's actually useful.
- perfunctory 7y ago
  > The civil rights movement had organized leadership that used the protests to mobilize voters, to gain public interest and recognition, etc., all with the ultimate aim of changing politicians/parties I was trying to say more or less the same, but maybe a bit too terse. [edit: with the qualification that I believe that protests and civil disobedience are essential means in "changing politicians/parties"] What I was trying to say is that passive voting for the currently available options is not enough. People need to get off their couches and get actively involved in a climate movement and shift the overton window. > Conversely, consider all sorts of modern disorganized protests, no matter the size. Which ones do you have in mind specifically?

hanniabu 7y ago

> We need something akin to civil rights movement. On the global scale. We also need someone other than Greta as the face of it. While she does a great job, she's often dismissed due to her age and the US president has even publicly called her retarded in the literal sense.

docdeek 7y ago
"...publicly called her retarded" I didn't catch that one - is there a source? All I am Googling up is Trump telling her to chill, watch a movie, and a reference to anger management.
arrrg 7y ago
Anyone who becomes the face of this will be relentlessly smeared, with no regard for reality. People in the streets is probably what you need.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  There's a difference between smeared and dismissed. I've even heard from people that think we need to make a change say "what does she know she's only a kid".
roenxi 7y ago
Greta is 16. A 16 year old brain is literally not fully developed. A global movement should be able to muster a better spokesperson than a child. No matter how earnest and scared a child may be, it is still a mistake to make major policy decisions on their say-so.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Greta was effectively chosen by the press. Yours is a standard attack line, because it allows you to pretend that it's only her saying this, and ignore all the thousands of others who've been saying similar things, from the IPCC to the Green Parties of the world.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Then they should find a spokeswoman among all those thousands who is both charismatic and also competent. A line of attack being standard doesn't make it bad. Putting forward a child to speak to world leaders and get worked up on behalf of other children isn't going to do the movement any favours. Greta is a puppet chosen because someone cynically thinks that putting a child on stage is going to tug on people's heartstrings. They might be right, but she doesn't have anything going for her that should command respect.
    - flukus 7y ago
      It doesn't matter who they pick, deniers are great diverting attention to smearing the person to take focus away from the issue, just take a look at how many still "herp derp al gore".
      - roenxi 7y ago
        It goes without saying that someone proposing we roll back our living standards and give up on the material comforts of the late modern era is going to have their character examined. It is reminiscent of the hazing process for candidates in major democratic roles. That does not make the flaws are irrelevant. She is being suggested as a leader but she is in no position to actually provide leadership. Al Gore also had a long list of problems, but he was much more respectable than Greta.

xoa 7y ago

>Unfortunately, I don't believe voting one way or another will make much difference. One party might be slightly better than another, but ultimately none will dare to implement sufficient measures. Then you are simply giving up on the whole thing? Because there is no other way to make much difference. If the current party platforms aren't sufficient, then those who care must first work to change those too. Become party members, work to select delegates that will then change it, etc. Same as any other democracy, regardless of details (in the US "party" (coalition) platforms and choices are determined by primaries before the country decides which one will assume government). >Climate problem will have to be solved outside of party politics. We need something akin to civil rights movement. On the global scale. It can't emphasized enough how completely, utterly wrong this is. Solving collective action problems requires coordinated use of power, which by definition is politics. Regardless of how the politics gets changed, it still will ultimately depend on politics. It's not some dirty word or concept, it's a descriptive/truism, when you work to get groups of humans to do something you're doing politics. It is our great good fortune, built on a mountain of blood a treasure, that so many of us live in democracies where it is so easy relative to history to work for radical political change through parties and government structures. You mention the civil rights movement, but that ONLY WORKED THROUGH POLITICS. There seems to have been a huge forgetting in modern times that protest movements and the like are only means to a political end, not constructive in and of themselves. The civil rights movement had organized leadership that used the protests to mobilize voters, to gain public interest and recognition, etc., all with the ultimate aim of changing politicians/parties and actually getting actual for real legislation passed. They worked to the extent they translated into votes and in turn into actual power. Conversely, consider all sorts of modern disorganized protests, no matter the size. It's perfectly possible to spend enormous amounts of time, effort, and resources and accomplish absolutely nothing whatsoever. It's a very dangerous and corrosive form of virtue signaling, and can actively harm progress because it burns people's limited capital to no useful end. And that in turn helps further breed disengagement, because people feel "they did something" "yet nothing happened". But "doing something" doesn't mean it's actually useful.

perfunctory 7y ago
> The civil rights movement had organized leadership that used the protests to mobilize voters, to gain public interest and recognition, etc., all with the ultimate aim of changing politicians/parties I was trying to say more or less the same, but maybe a bit too terse. [edit: with the qualification that I believe that protests and civil disobedience are essential means in "changing politicians/parties"] What I was trying to say is that passive voting for the currently available options is not enough. People need to get off their couches and get actively involved in a climate movement and shift the overton window. > Conversely, consider all sorts of modern disorganized protests, no matter the size. Which ones do you have in mind specifically?