Greta Thunberg & Extinction Rebellion

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Angry Ram said:

Who said that because their methods are being challenged some don't agree with the message? You really do make some poo up when you post.

The two are different things. Why not comment on some Muppet dressed as a bloody broccoli, or young girls running around Trafalgar Square screaming? Nobody has said that because of some weird broccoli dude, they now no longer believe in climate change. It's pretty hard to ignore some of their antics. Why can't you debate two things.. Do we need your permission? 

You are quick to judge others fella. Perhaps getting off your high horse and reading posts would be a start.

My initial response has been moderated so here's the watered down version. What I actually said was that it was a shame that the focus of recent posts (not just yours) has been the character of the protestors. And feel free to say whatever you want I'll not try to get your posts moderated pal, I'm happy to fight my corner without interventions.

Returning to the post I responded to and your comments about the protestors, I'm proud of the broccoli brigade for actually taking a stance and they can run down Pall Mall munching their undies if it draws attention to the issue at hand. If you'd rather focus on them that's your prerogative but I'm not seeing any posts from you stating the case for environmental change, only character assassinating those prepared to put their money where the mouths are, not that I find this hugely surprising. This comes hot on the heels of endless posts (not yours before you get 'angry') debating Greta's character, 'backers' and motivations. That's a theme of this and other threads and if you have an issue with me pointing this out then perhaps you should take some of your own advice and allow others to voice their opinions while you do the same.

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

But it’s still a free, web-based tool with largely the same functionality as the more popular apps that you mention . I don’t buy the argument of him being “silenced”. He has platforms available to him, and if his message is a good one, then he will build an audience. If not then his bad ideas will wither and die (pretty sure you said that’s how it should work?).

If you don't think that TR has been silenced then I would suggest more reading on how effective deplatforming is.  Good and bad ideas should be debated but a quick youtube search for Tommy Robinson returns only negative mainstream media reports and his channel has been deleted.  I'm pretty sure he's gone from Facebook and I recall twitter also banning anyone that mentioned TR in a positive light in the aftermath of them banning him - thats not allowing bad ideas to whither and die thats removing them from view, ignoring the problem and hoping they goes away.

But it was just supposed to be a quick reply to your free speech comment - for the left closing down free speech/deplatforming is a good thing, yet @G STAR RAM, @Angry Ram and myself have all said that extinction rebellion have the right to protest (and therefore free speech).  What we think of the people protesting is neither here nor there and whether they break the law or not is up to the police. 

[Stive Pesley]

17 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

I'm proud of the broccoli brigade for actually taking a stance and they can run down Pall Mall munching their undies if it draws attention to the issue at hand. If you'd rather focus on them that's your prerogative but I'm not seeing any posts from you stating the case for environmental change, only character assassinating those prepared to put their money where the mouths are, not that I find this hugely surprising. This comes hot on the heels of endless posts (not yours before you get 'angry') debating Greta's character, 'backers' and motivations.

We have people who question her motives, or that she is being manipulated by some sinister entity
Then we have people who don’t question her motives, but question the vast amounts of scientific evidence

I get it – it’s scary to accept that the human race is on a trajectory to extinction, but it’s inarguably true.

The current models show that, based on the rate of population growth, there will be more than 11 billion people living on earth by the end of this century.

The economic growth required to sustain that number of people will surpass the earth’s biocapacity by something like 400%. I don’t care how cynical you are – you can’t argue that this is bad news.

I suppose it’s easy to argue that in 80 years time I’ll be dead so what do I care, it’s someone else’s problem - but what we are seeing now is a generation of people opening their eyes to the fact that it’s on them to START the changes that the world requires for the human race to survive. Our generation are too acclimatised to being passive spectators.

These are historic times. This is the start.

There will either be history books that laugh at the cynics of today, or there will be no history books

[Comrade 86]

51 minutes ago, maxjam said:

If you don't think that TR has been silenced then I would suggest more reading on how effective deplatforming is.  Good and bad ideas should be debated but a quick youtube search for Tommy Robinson returns only negative mainstream media reports and his channel has been deleted.  I'm pretty sure he's gone from Facebook and I recall twitter also banning anyone that mentioned TR in a positive light in the aftermath of them banning him - thats not allowing bad ideas to whither and die thats removing them from view, ignoring the problem and hoping they goes away.

But it was just supposed to be a quick reply to your free speech comment - for the left closing down free speech/deplatforming is a good thing, yet @G STAR RAM, @Angry Ram and myself have all said that extinction rebellion have the right to protest (and therefore free speech).  What we think of the people protesting is neither here nor there and whether they break the law or not is up to the police. 

You seem rather more bothered about the deplatforming of Tommeh than the attempt to shut down extinction rebellion protestors though, which I think was the point @SchtivePesley was making. Any protest causes disruptions so the question is, does the ends justify the means?

[maxjam]

17 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

You seem rather more bothered about the deplatforming of Tommeh than the attempt to shut down extinction rebellion protestors though, which I think was the point @SchtivePesley was making. Any protest causes disruptions so the question is, does the ends justify the means?

I've always been more bothered about the free speech angle no matter what I've talked about tbh.  @SchtivePesley bought up TR, I replied with a quick comment about encroaching censorship and the move to shut down Piers Morgan for 'wrong think' whilst at the same time defending the extinction rebellions right to free speech and protest. 

Not sure how many more time I have to say that I agree with their right to free speech and protest, but to be clear I agree with the extinction rebellions right to free speech and protest - they can stand there with their placards all day for all I care.  If they break the law or cause to much of a disturbance they are going to be arrested however, which is what is happening.  

We can argue about how effective their methods are and whether they are actually raising awareness of climate change to the average person or simply coming across as a load of loonies to be ignored.  Thats probably best answered by the following tweet;

 

[Highgate]

You always get the impression that those describing the protesters in an unflattering light are themselves Climate Change Skeptics.  Are they simply using the protests in an attempt to pour cold water on the whole Climate Change issue? 

I find it hard to believe that they are really genuinely concerned that these protesters may be doing the whole Green movement a disservice by their activities.  Maybe I'm wrong, is there a chance that is actually where they are coming from?,  a deep fear that the necessary measures that our governments and we all need to take will actually be derailed or delayed by the protests?  Seems unlikely. 

Also why do the same people never seem to debate climate change itself, an issue that is, it is no exaggeration to say, a billion times more important than the actions of some protesters?  It's curious to be so persistently focused on the irrelevant.

 

[Comrade 86]

7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

You always get the impression that those describing the protesters in an unflattering light are themselves Climate Change Skeptics.  Are they simply using the protests in an attempt to pour cold water on the whole Climate Change issue? 

I find it hard to believe that they are really genuinely concerned that these protesters may be doing the whole Green movement a disservice by their activities.  Maybe I'm wrong, is there a chance that is actually where they are coming from?,  a deep fear that the necessary measures that our governments and we all need to take will actually be derailed or delayed by the protests?  Seems unlikely. 

Also why do the same people never seem to debate climate change itself, an issue that is, it is no exaggeration to say, a billion times more important than the actions of some protesters?  It's curious to be so persistently focused on the irrelevant.

 

This in spades 

[maxjam]

23 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Also why do the same people never seem to debate climate change itself, an issue that is, it is no exaggeration to say, a billion times more important than the actions of some protesters?  It's curious to be so persistently focused on the irrelevant.

I'm happy to debate climate change, just not with someone dressed as broccoli who decides to answer an imaginary banana telephone during a tv interview.  

In your opinion has that person advanced the cause of the climate discussion debate or has he pushed people to think that they are all wacko's and can be safely ignored?  I personally think its the latter which will undo any good work that may have been achieved. 

[Stive Pesley]

25 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Also why do the same people never seem to debate climate change itself, an issue that is, it is no exaggeration to say, a billion times more important than the actions of some protesters?  It's curious to be so persistently focused on the irrelevant.

Like drawing a line between peaceful protest about the rapidly approaching extinction of the human race and something about Piers Morgan (at  best an attention seeking celeb with nothing meaningful to say).

Actually when I put it like that we probably deserve extinction.

"Daddy, i'm so hot and we have no food. What was your grandfather doing when the climate protests started?"

"Well son, he was saying how we better not protest too hard in case people tried to stop Piers Morgan from spouting his edge lord rubbish"

[Stive Pesley]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm happy to debate climate change, just not with someone dressed as broccoli who decides to answer an imaginary banana telephone during a tv interview.  

In your opinion has that person advanced the cause of the climate discussion debate or has he pushed people to think that they are all wacko's and can be safely ignored?  I personally think its the latter which will undo any good work that may have been achieved. 

And in your opinion, why do you think the TV chose to give Mr Brocolli airtime, and not one of the regular every day protesters who made up the vast majority of the people involved? But again focussing on - "the person giving me the message was dressed as a vegetable and I didn't like it" is a crass take

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Like drawing a line between peaceful protest about the rapidly approaching extinction of the human race and something about Piers Morgan (at  best an attention seeking celeb with nothing meaningful to say).

Actually when I put it like that we probably deserve extinction.

"Daddy, i'm so hot and we have no food. What was your grandfather doing when the climate protests started?"

"Well son, he was saying how we better not protest too hard in case people tried to stop Piers Morgan from spouting his edge lord rubbish"

Dunno how to multi-quote from a different page but you initially bought up Tommy Robinson and related him to this forums 'free speech warriors' as per the below;

'Now that Tommy Robinson has piped down a bit since he came out of the slammer,  I hope that our resident free speech warriors are up in arms about the police banning the peaceful Extinction Rebellion protesters from the whole of London.

I mean that's Police-state level stuff isn't it?'

I replied with a comment and recent Piers Morgan example of encroaching free speech and said that no one is actually preventing the extinction rebellions right to free speech or protest. 

 

12 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

And in your opinion, why do you think the TV chose to give Mr Brocolli airtime, and not one of the regular every day protesters who made up the vast majority of the people involved? But again focussing on - "the person giving me the message was dressed as a vegetable and I didn't like it" is a crass take

Because he's not the only one, a quick search returns lots of example of people doing similar.  I'll repeat my earlier question seeing as it wasn't answered, if that is the example the media are presenting (and yes we you can blame the media if you want) would it not be wiser to change your approach? 

If all the average person sees is people doing weird dances and dressed up as vegetables do you think they are going to take what they are saying seriously or simply ignore them as crazies?  Its doing more harm than good imo.

[Highgate]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm happy to debate climate change, just not with someone dressed as broccoli who decides to answer an imaginary banana telephone during a tv interview.  

In your opinion has that person advanced the cause of the climate discussion debate or has he pushed people to think that they are all wacko's and can be safely ignored?  I personally think its the latter which will undo any good work that may have been achieved. 

I haven't seen the broccoli guy.  I actually pay little attention to climate change protests and protesters for the simple reason that I'm already entirely convinced by the man-made climate change argument and have been since the early 1990s.

There is always a worry for protestors, on any issue, that their protests could backfire in some sections of the general public and loses sympathy for their cause.  That's a constant.

I don't see how thinking one individual was behaving in a foolish manner should lead someone to conclude that Climate Change is therefore also silly and can be disregarded. That would be simply irrational in the extreme.  It's not like Mr. Broccoli is the first person to ever mention climate change.

If you are happy to debate climate change then this seems like the perfect thread to do so, given it's title.   Are you entirely convinced that the humans have warmed up the global climate and continue to do so?   If you are convinced what do you think will happen to our civilization if we continue on the same path regardless?

 

[maxjam]

25 minutes ago, Highgate said:

If you are happy to debate climate change then this seems like the perfect thread to do so, given it's title.   Are you entirely convinced that the humans have warmed up the global climate and continue to do so?   If you are convinced what do you think will happen to our civilization if we continue on the same path regardless?

A long time ago on this forum I said that I hoped the fallout of Brexit would lead to a reform in the electoral system and a move to a proper PR system.  If that happened I said I would break my duck in voting in a General Election and vote Green, not because I want to see them in power, but in the hope that they would get enough votes to have a proper say on future policies.  That has been my outlook for 20+ years.

If it was up to me I'd go the whole hog and start limiting population growth right now, regardless of anything else that is happening there are simply to many people on the planet.  Vote winner right there ?

Just as people assume what my opinions are with regards to Tommy Robinson (for clarity - happy to debate his message, don't approve of the methods) just because I agree that some of the protesters deserve arresting and others are doing more harm than good doesn't mean that I am against the cause.  I just think that they are coming across as crazies and to the average person watching the latest stunts on the news at night, the real message won't be getting through.

[Smyth_18]

We're debating a broccoli man.

 

[Highgate]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

A long time ago on this forum I said that I hoped the fallout of Brexit would lead to a reform in the electoral system and a move to a proper PR system.  If that happened I said I would break my duck in voting in a General Election and vote Green, not because I want to see them in power, but in the hope that they would get enough votes to have a proper say on future policies.  That has been my outlook for 20+ years.

If it was up to me I'd go the whole hog and start limiting population growth right now, regardless of anything else that is happening there are simply to many people on the planet.  Vote winner right there ?

Just as people assume what my opinions are with regards to Tommy Robinson (for clarity - happy to debate his message, don't approve of the methods) just because I agree that some of the protesters deserve arresting and others are doing more harm than good doesn't mean that I am against the cause.  I just think that they are coming across as crazies and to the average person watching the latest stunts on the news at night, the real message won't be getting through.

I think you maybe sort of answered my questions, although not directly.  Not either of them.

Why wouldn't you want to see the Green party in power if you believe human Climate Change is real and if you think they are the only party taking it seriously?   Having them as a minor party in coalition might not work, their policies might get sidelined.

Couldn't agree with you more about the PR system.  The FPTP method is not fit for purpose in a democracy in my opinion.

As for limiting population, if you make sure everyone has decent access to education up to 3rd level the population issue gets controlled for you, or so it seems. The crucial factor is that women get educated to that level, as is often not the case in many parts of the world.  So education for everyone is the first step in controlling population. 

The problem with the real message not getting through is that climate scientists, the most relevant people in this debate, have been saying almost unanimously for decades now that climate change is our fault and it will be a disaster.  And we, and our governments, simply haven't listened.  Maybe it's time for a few crazy vegetables to have a go.

 

 

 

[ariotofmyown]

Hadn't looked at this thread before. It's another Tommy Robinson one! The only thing more boring than Tommy Robinson threads is Tommy Robinson.

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

I'm happy to debate climate change, just not with someone dressed as broccoli who decides to answer an imaginary banana telephone during a tv interview.  

In your opinion has that person advanced the cause of the climate discussion debate or has he pushed people to think that they are all wacko's and can be safely ignored?  I personally think its the latter which will undo any good work that may have been achieved. 

This in spades....

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

Like drawing a line between peaceful protest about the rapidly approaching extinction of the human race and something about Piers Morgan (at  best an attention seeking celeb with nothing meaningful to say).

Actually when I put it like that we probably deserve extinction.

"Daddy, i'm so hot and we have no food. What was your grandfather doing when the climate protests started?"

"Well son, he was saying how we better not protest too hard in case people tried to stop Piers Morgan from spouting his edge lord rubbish"

Interested to know just what you are doing?

[maxjam]

19 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Why wouldn't you want to see the Green party in power if you believe human Climate Change is real and if you think they are the only party taking it seriously?   Having them as a minor party in coalition might not work, their policies might get sidelined.

I haven't looked at Green party policies in a long time but doubt they are suitable for running a country, a bit like AOC's Green New Deal.  With a proper PR government I'd hope that the Greens would get a sizeable vote, enough to influence to affect future policies. 

 

24 minutes ago, Highgate said:

As for limiting population, if you make sure everyone has decent access to education up to 3rd level the population issue gets controlled for you, or so it seems. The crucial factor is that women get educated to that level, as is often not the case in many parts of the world.  So education for everyone is the first step in controlling population. 

Yeah I've read that as well and it will help but imo there are simply far to many people on the planet already, let alone 50 years in the future.  At some point we are going to have to have a serious talk about how to sensibly reduce numbers - all the other problems go away if we control our own population.

 

27 minutes ago, Highgate said:

The problem with the real message not getting through is that climate scientists, the most relevant people in this debate, have been saying almost unanimously for decades now that climate change is our fault and it will be a disaster.  And we, and our governments, simply haven't listened.  Maybe it's time for a few crazy vegetables to have a go.

I'd agree with the first bit but still don't agree that the crazies are having any meaningful impact, they are more likely to persuade people to carry on ignoring it imo.  I don't know what it will take tbh, we can all see it coming but do nothing about it.  A major war over resources or mass starvation will focus peoples attention ?

[ariotofmyown]

No point even worrying about Climate Change. No one will ever do anything and we haven't got the ability to change direction. We can't even sort out relatively simple but urgent problems like child poverty and homelessness, and we live in one of the richest countries in the world! What a load of selfish fools we are.

There is zero hope so don't worry about it. Anyway, we'll all be dead by the time of the worst impacts. Sorry kids.

Please remember to recycle your plastic bags at the supermarket though. It literally makes no difference, but at least you will feel like you are doing your bit!