It’s frustrating when people think talking down to others is going to change minds. It’s no wonder progressive activists fail to make progress.
If you expect people with different perspectives to get behind people like Greta you’ll want to adopt a better strategy. Otherwise, you’ll continue to polarize folks.
I am not sure about that. There plenty of people who use her as an example to further their propaganda against progressive movements.
Hmm, in this instance probably. I am worried she’ll gather the wrong type of attention and turn more people off than on to climate issues.
Fair point, it isn’t the worst either. The thing I see though is people shouting over one another trying to push their agenda (noble or not) and all it does is make people more polarized. Just look at the comments on this post.
Something that intrigued me was how Martin Luther King managed to do so much through nonviolent protest. Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat and the bus boycotts made people realize how absurd and unfair Jim Crow laws were.
He even participated in a sit in at a department store and was arrested for it. People were getting arrested in such numbers for such simple things it made people think about what King and his followers were trying to do.
I have no doubts that Ms. Thunberg has good intentions, but her protests are simply ineffective. In this case, “blockading” an oil port just frustrates people for delaying a crucial product.
At this point who notices protests? They are so commonplace unless tens of thousands of people are involved. I agree that this will catch the public eye and may motivate people to side with her, but it could have the opposite effect as well. People rely on fossil fuels to get through their day (e.g. commuting, heating their homes, electric generation even). Making it more expensive may frustrate people who are more concerned about making ends meet than the climate.
It sucks, but there are limits to how practical it is to disrupt a crucial resource.
From what I gather, blocking an oil port is extremist and doesn’t actually do anything but make life more difficult for the general population.
From that perspective I can agree with him. Blockading an oil port is an extreme approach to combating climate change. More sensible approaches would be figuring out how to lobby governments to tax fossil fuels and use that money to support renewable resources.
If you read into his other posts he is saying her approach of blocking people from living their lives is ineffective. It is like protesting something by blocking off a highway people need to use to make a living.
I am convinced I’d be a terrible rich asshole. I’d never be able to hold on to that much money considering how fucked up the world is. That said, I have a conscience. Lacking one seems to be a prerequisite.
And people didn’t think Trump had a shot back in 2016.
I live in a town that’s split down the middle politically and I still see people flying Trump flags even after all the bs he has done. We even had a council member denounce pride month back in June at a council meeting. They think they are fighting the good fight.
Anyway, my point is that there are people who will see what Greta is doing, even if it benefits them, and still fight it because they think their side has their back.