Around the world News

[redebreck]

No, I think her reason for rattling on is that she's gone to school, learned some science, heard some scientists say the planet is in trouble, seen some evidence on the news, got scared, thought politicians don't care and aren't doing enough and then thought what's the point of going to school if we've got no future, and she's called the politicians out on their inaction. To which I say fair fucks to her.

Like I said I don't agree with her on everything and I don't think she got the solution but if we're going to change the world we need people to stand up and demand change.

And I do believe politicians have taken umbrage because she's young and female, which amuses me - they could criticise her arguments not her pigtails, age, gender etc.

if she's just a silly schoolgirl then just ignore her. Why on earth does she trigger such a reaction? Well the answers are pretty obvious ;-)

Spot on.
Everyone has to ask: why are the politicians and leaders of industry ignoring the problem?
The problems are becoming more and more obvious, and they appear to be doing nothing.

[Balinkay]

Who will you vote for rederbreck?

Someone who promises to raise your pension here and now by 10% or someone who promises to do their best to stop something bad happening in 25 years? People are short sighted, we're not evolved to deal with issues that aren't immediate. We're not good at thinking at scale. And until the last generation or so we've not had to.

Democracies aren't well set up to deal with temporally distant problems, because the politicians need to keep the people happy here and now. That's why we'll only start seeing radical changes when a hurricane levels Ireland with the ground or New York gets submerged under 10 feet of water. Because only then will people vote in large enough numbers for people who campaign on environmental conservation, only then will it finally hit people that this is actually a big issue. Because it will be "here and now".

[CCTV]

No, I think her reason for rattling on is that she's gone to school, learned some science, heard some scientists say the planet is in trouble, seen some evidence on the news, got scared, thought politicians don't care and aren't doing enough and then thought what's the point of going to school if we've got no future, and she's called the politicians out on their inaction. To which I say fair fucks to her.

Like I said I don't agree with her on everything and I don't think she got the solution but if we're going to change the world we need people to stand up and demand change.

And I do believe politicians have taken umbrage because she's young and female, which amuses me - they could criticise her arguments not her pigtails, age, gender etc.

if she's just a silly schoolgirl then just ignore her. Why on earth does she trigger such a reaction? Well the answers are pretty obvious ;-)

Your kidding right ? Its hard to tell when you're being sarcastic/jesting and serious.

It's hard to think that you could seriously think that had she acted the exact same way, but was a boy she'd be applauded without criticism.
Or that the only fault in her campaign, appeals, communications and strategy was that she was a girl.

[stevie harkness]

Your kidding right ? Its hard to tell when you're being sarcastic/jesting and serious.

It's hard to think that you could seriously think that had she acted the exact same way, but was a boy she'd be applauded without criticism.
Or that the only fault in her campaign, appeals, communications and strategy was that she was a girl.

I was being serious, but come on mate that's a bit of a stretch for you to seriously think that I was saying that as a boy she'd be applauded without criticism?!

And for you to seriously think that I was saying her only fault was being a girl?!

Seriously?! You have to be kidding!

What I said was that some people disagree with her and criticise her opinion (fair enough) but some seem bothered by her age and gender hence their insults like "pigtailed prophetess" - To me that betrays their underlying attitudes to people her age and gender, otherwise why say it?

If her arguement is so flawed it should be easy enough to dismantle.

[redebreck]

Who will you vote for rederbreck?

Someone who promises to raise your pension here and now by 10% or someone who promises to do their best to stop something bad happening in 25 years? People are short sighted, we're not evolved to deal with issues that aren't immediate. We're not good at thinking at scale. And until the last generation or so we've not had to.

Democracies aren't well set up to deal with temporally distant problems, because the politicians need to keep the people happy here and now. That's why we'll only start seeing radical changes when a hurricane levels Ireland with the ground or New York gets submerged under 10 feet of water. Because only then will people vote in large enough numbers for people who campaign on environmental conservation, only then will it finally hit people that this is actually a big issue. Because it will be "here and now".

In my twenties and thirties I might have voted for the 10% pension increase. My views and opinions have changed as I have grown older. People become wise, in my opinion, as their age increases.
Those in Government and positions of responsibility are assumed to be wise, and aware of what's going on and therefore be aware of something bad happening 25 years hence. Those people should be taking responsibility to make the population aware of it, while also dealing with it to ensure it doesn't happen.
But they don't, apparently. The media/press is also at fault in some cases, for not supporting those who are warning us, and publicising the problems that are going on.
These problems affecting our planet haven't just started within the last five years, they have been going on for decades. Why has nobody (in government or in a similarly powerful position) spoken out and done something?

[fiordearg]

ANGRY MIDDLED-AGED men have presented a unified front and announced that henceforth all their rants in public, private and online will be reduced to one single-issue; 16-year-old climate action activist Greta Thunberg.

Thunberg, a mainstay in the news for much of the last year due to her on-going climate crisis school strike, being put forth for a Nobel Prize nomination and sailing across the Atlantic to raise awareness for the need for climate action, has been on the receiving end of consternation and condescension from middle-aged men who are struggling to figure out why she makes them so angry.


“I don’t like it, she’s a young female teenager and the world is paying attention to her. They’re treating her protests with the sort of seriousness I’ve never been treated with in my home,” confirmed one representative for the Angry Middle Aged Support Group (AMASG) and father of three daughters who challenge his political stances on a daily basis.

Members of the AMASG have clocked up an impressive number of hours carefully tracking the 16-year-old girl’s movements and utterances, spying for a way to accuse her of being a hypocrite or foolish, and in the process the men have understandably earned respect the world over.

“Eh, she bangs on about climate change but last time I checked she’s a human, living on earth…hypocrite much?” confirmed another AMASG member, whose anger won’t be quenched until Thunberg is never seen or heard from again in the media or until he addresses the underlying issues which are driving him to bully a child online.

“Oh, and I’m not ‘angry’ I’m just incredibly, incredibly mad which is entirely different and logical. Big deal she’s on a boat, does she think being on the boat is going to reverse climate change, which doesn’t even exist?” added the man of a certain vintage, delighting in his take down of the silly naive teenager who presumably stated very clearly before embarking on her voyage that a single boat trip would reverse the effects climate change immediately?




PrivacyYour Privacy SettingsContact UsDisclaimerCompetition Rules
© 2019 Waterford Whispers News.

[CCTV]

I was being serious, but come on mate that's a bit of a stretch for you to seriously think that I was saying that as a boy she'd be applauded without criticism?!

And for you to seriously think that I was saying her only fault was being a girl?!

Seriously?! You have to be kidding!

What I said was that some people disagree with her and criticise her opinion (fair enough) but some seem bothered by her age and gender hence their insults like "pigtailed prophetess" - To me that betrays their underlying attitudes to people her age and gender, otherwise why say it?

If her arguement is so flawed it should be easy enough to dismantle.

I was caricaturing your position and did lead with 'it's hard to think that you could seriously think that...'

I havent done that iirc in this thread, I guess you're talking about twatter or other social media comments, where that is a typical trend.
A trend that is intentionally derived from the social medias algorithms which seek to increase hysteria and rage on the platform all with the aim of increasing clicks, content consumption, participation and revenue.

I'd counter by saying that where ideas are critiqued it's quite natural (if also poor form) for people to focus on the person and play them as well as the ball/thought. I'd say we all do it to varying degrees.

Does it mean that they have an underlying resentment towards women, or more aptly teenage girls ? I doubt it tbh. A resentment for people they disagree with sounds more plausible.
As said her campaign was poor and as such she receives flak for her own utterances.

Say you hate trump and mock his appearances or his profile as an older white man, does it mean you hate all white older men ? I doubt it again, Trump invites if on himself though arguably in politics it is more natural to rub people up the wrong way.

There are biases noted in peoples cognition so it's contestable and you have a point.

As an example
This is David Pizzaro giving a talk about trolley tests (hypothetical scenarios, would you kill x to save y, utilitarian problems) ... "But we manipulated it a little bit. What we did was to give the large man a name. We told half of the people that they were in a situation where there were a large number of people that were going to get killed by a bus unless they pushed a very large man off of a footbridge.
We manipulated whether the guy's name was Tyrone Payton or whether his name was Chip Ellsworth III. We took this to be a valid manipulation of race, and (because reviewers ask for such things) it turns out that yes, most people think that Tyrone is Black and most people think Chip is White. And so we simply asked people, would you push Chip Ellsworth III (or would you push Tyrone Payton)?
We also asked people to indicate [their political orientation] on a seven-point scale, where one meant they were liberal and seven meant they were conservative. In case you're curious, this simple one item measure of liberal/conservative is correlated with much larger and more detailed measures of political orientation, and it predicts voting behavior, along with all the other things that you might want it to predict. We then asked people "was this action appropriate [i.e., pushing the large man off the bridge to save the greater number of people]," "do you agree with what the person did," and critically, we asked people the general principle, we said, "do you agree with the following: sometimes it's necessary to kill innocent people for the sake of saving greater numbers of lives?" (It's a very, very straightforward principle).
What we found was that liberals, when they were given Chip Ellsworth III, were more than happy to say, "clearly consequentialism is right." You push the guy, right? You've gotto save the people. Self-reported conservatives actually reported the opposite—they were more likely to say that you should push Tyrone Payton, and that well, yes, consequentialism is the right moral theory (when the example was Tyrone Payton). When asked about the general principle [of consquentialism] they also endorsed the general principle.
We did this both at U.C. Irvine, and then we wanted to find a sample of more sort of, you know, real people, so we went in Orange County out to a mall and we got people who are actually republicans and actually democrats (not wishy-washy college students). The effect just got stronger. (This time it was using a "lifeboat" dilemma where one person has to be thrown off the edge of a lifeboat in order to save everybody, again using the names "Tyrone Payton" or "Chip Ellsworth III". We replicated the finding, but this time it was even stronger.
If you're wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist, but it appears in these studies that the effect is driven by liberals saying that they're more likely to agree with pushing the white man and disagree with pushing the Black man. So we used to refer to this as the "kill whitey" study. It appears driven by a liberal aversion to killing, to sacrificing Tyrone, and not in this case, to the conservatives. (Although if you want evidence that conservatives are more racist, I'm sure it's there.)
So we thought, okay, we demonstrated this using this traditional trolley example. Let's look at another moral example that might be a more relevant and a bit more realistic. So this time we asked students (again at U.C. Irvine), we said here's a scenario in which there are a group of soldiers who are mounting an attack against the opposing military force (this is a classic "double effect" case from philosophy) where the military leaders knew that they would unintentionally kill civilians in the attack. They didn't want to, but they foresaw that it would happen.
For one set of respondents we described American soldiers in Iraq who are mounting an attack against Iraqi insurgents, and in this case, Iraqi civilians, innocent Iraqi civilians would die. The other set read about Iraqi insurgents attacking American forces and in this case, innocent American civilians would die.
What we found, again, was that when we asked people whether they were liberal or conservative, and we look at the split—I'll just give you the actual example we used: "Recently an attack on Iraqi insurgent leaders was conducted by American forces. The attack was strategically directed at a few key rebel leaders. It was strongly believed that eliminating these key leaders would cause a significant reduction in the casualties of American military forces and American civilians. It was known that in carrying out this attack, there was a chance of Iraqi civilian casualties. Although these results were not intended, and American forces sought to minimize the death of civilians, but they did it anyway." And we tell them that sure enough, they do it and civilians die.
We then asked people, is this morally permissible? Is it okay to carry out a military attack when you unintentionally, but foreseeably are going to kill civilians? And what you get, again, is a flip. This time it seems to be more motivated by a liberal bias for favoring the action of the Iraqi insurgents. So we used to refer to this as the "reasons for treason" study. (Laughs)
But you get a more natural crossover effect here, such that conservatives are more likely to say consequentialism is true, that sometimes innocent people just have to die, but only when it's the Iraqi civilians dying. Liberals are more likely to say consequentialism is true when American civilians are dying."
https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_pizarro-a-new-science-of-morality-part-6

[stevie harkness]

@CCTV, I don't think you understand my points at all, but I can't put it any clearer. You're over simplifying what I've said and extrapolating to the point of ridiculousness.

(By the way the "pigtailed prophetess" jibe and similar was from an MP, in the link I posted)

[Balinkay]

In my twenties and thirties I might have voted for the 10% pension increase. My views and opinions have changed as I have grown older. People become wise, in my opinion, as their age increases.
Those in Government and positions of responsibility are assumed to be wise, and aware of what's going on and therefore be aware of something bad happening 25 years hence. Those people should be taking responsibility to make the population aware of it, while also dealing with it to ensure it doesn't happen.
But they don't, apparently. The media/press is also at fault in some cases, for not supporting those who are warning us, and publicising the problems that are going on.
These problems affecting our planet haven't just started within the last five years, they have been going on for decades. Why has nobody (in government or in a similarly powerful position) spoken out and done something?

I assumed it's because of what I said - it's easier to get people to vote for you if you promise to tackle tangible immediate issues. I fully agree on the rest.

[CCTV]

@CCTV, I don't think you understand my points at all, but I can't put it any clearer. You're over simplifying what I've said and extrapolating to the point of ridiculousness.

(By the way the "pigtailed prophetess" jibe and similar was from an MP, in the link I posted)

Don't think the term 'pigtailed prophetess' was in the link you provided so I assumed you were talking about another area like social media.
The conservative mp called the strike from school, truancy in the piece, which tbf to the conservative mp has absolutely nothing do do with profile other than she is of school age.
Having clicked on the link just now it appears his reply was to UK children going on strike, not even Greta. I read it as being against Greta as the piece flows that way. The Brexit associated businessman was also a tweet. I stand by my assertion about social media algorithms and their influence on media and those who use these services blindly.
Rereading the piece again, it seems abundantly clear why she has received flak it's in the piece.

Your piece read to me so comically I couldn't tell if it was sincere or messing.
As such I replied caricaturing your position and posited such beliefs as comical or hardly credible to be exact. The idea being youd reply.
So what are your beliefs on the role of gender-based hatred exactly with respect to the backlash she has received ?