The Liberal Abandonment Of Greta Thunberg : worldnews

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 203 points 1 week ago

They abandoned her around the time her environmental protests started being a little too effective. I mean disruptive.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 106 points 1 week ago

Wasn't that also when she started being critical of the impact of capitalism on the environment? 🤔

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 103 points 1 week ago

they abandoned her right around the time she started to notice she wouldn't be effective unless she started attacking capitalism as the root cause.

[-] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com -5 points 1 week ago

Looked like she was always pushing the marxist position to me. I mean, this mostly started when she was playing with the EU "aristocracy".

[+] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world -24 points 1 week ago

Effective? Come on.

I mean she's great, gave a voice to what a lot of people have been thinking for decades before she was born. Maybe what most people think today. But there is really nothing that's effective. It's not dissing her, it's just that the machine is too strong and it's able to even use the opposition to itself for the machines purpose, like the article says.Usually. It didn't work with Greta, so she's just ignored.

[-] chobeat@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 week ago

Everything made by humans can be destroyed by humans. No social system is forever. The rest is just skill issue.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Dumb take, we have abandoned many an undefeatable system in the past, and giving people's feelings a voice is what got us there

[-] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We have also not abandoned many systems many times, that's not an argument. Show me the effect and disruption. I'm not against it, just right now there isn't much there.

You can say she was the head of that flotilla and without her it would be at least much smaller and you are right, but in this case, considering what Israel did to them and there is still a lack of any real effects.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

It's incredibly hard to prove things like this so if you don't believe it you don't, but I don't think the effects are just meant to be directly bringing food to Gaza. If that were the only way to measure it you'd be right. But the only thing which could possibly stop Israel is strong political pressure from the West and we are getting closer to that, the world is angry about it in a way they weren't before. Even Germany, the most hard-line Israel supporter is changing its stance. These massive protests in Italy wouldn't have been like this otherwise. Yeah maybe I'm wrong because these things are nebulous and slow but that's how activism is and I think those things are real changes.

[-] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I am thinking of the political effects. I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.

But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn't be surprising.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.

This stuff takes longer than a news cycle, that was two days ago.

But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn't be surprising.

Agreed.

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 165 points 1 week ago

Greta could have become a very rich liberal grifter.

keep them Davos cheques coming in.

instead she's risking her life to help those humanity has abandoned.

respect

[-] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 105 points 1 week ago

This isn’t at all to say her original stance was misguided. It is to say that she recognises genocide and ecocide come from the same root. Systems of power that destroy ecosystems also destroy people, also destroy planets, also destroy worlds. She is in many ways simply displaying a logical consistency, as much as a moral one, about the interconnected nature of the evils that plague our civilisation. And this is where she broke with a liberal class who see evils selectively and in terms framed and dictated by empire.

hear hear! Too many people who love the “first they came for” poem who still think Palestine is a pesky wedge issue being used against their boys in blue.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 77 points 1 week ago

She's not that rowdy little girl anymore. Now she's a fierce young woman.

So of course they abandoned her.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Liberal ‘leaders’ abandonment. There needs to be an understanding that leadership is no longer following the will of the people in the United States. On either the left or the right. This fact is more of a cause of why things are so crazy than anything the people are doing or wanting

At least in the United States

Also: Israel is currently a terrorist state

[-] SupremeDonut@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

Also Israel now owns tiktok for a propaganda machine

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago

The term "liberal" is toxic. Liberal's are disliked by "the right" and by progressives. They are truly useless snowflakes that do nothing but virtue signal and sell everything and everyone out that threatens their convenience and comforts.

[+] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com -6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don't think it is toxic, as much as it is almost always misused. Read the following and tell me how many people you know have been using the term correctly.

WIKIPEDIA: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago

For leftists that's exactly who we're talking about when we say liberals. The right to private property and equality and the consent of the governed are logically incompatible. Right liberals (e.g. US Republican party) emphasise the former, and moderate liberals (e.g. US Democratic party) pay lip service to the latter while only actually protecting the former. It's really only about property in the end.

[-] cecilkorik@piefed.ca -3 points 6 days ago

They are not logically incompatible, but we will have to make clear and specific decisions about where one ends and the other begins.

Unless you are asking me to live in a society where I must share my toothbrush with others because I am not allowed to keep any private property.

I do believe in private property: with modest, reasonable limits. Which we can and will discuss the details of over time, and I understand that will likely become a heated discussion at times, but I believe it is an inevitable and necessary one. Does that disqualify me from being a leftist? Does it make me a liberal too? Let me know.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago

I wouldn’t say those three things are inherently logically incompatible, but there would be a lot of grey areas.

The power structure of the federal government doesn’t make it any easier to actually exercise the federal government to accomplish helpful objectives, but making things worse is a relatively easy exercise.

The focus on state level politics seems much more meaningful to actually accomplish any goals, since at least there is not as big of a hurdle where land and money have more power/representation than real people.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] notsosure@sh.itjust.works -45 points 1 week ago

It just shows that an ambassador for one topic doesn’t have to be successful for another.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 week ago

you might be proving the author's point somewhat.

World News

Rules: