Greta Thunberg Was Headed for Gaza Before Boat Was Attacked by Israeli Drones, Activists Say
Greta Thunberg Was Headed for Gaza Before Boat Was Attacked by Israeli Drones, Activists Say
Activists say a humanitarian ship en route to Gaza with Greta Thunberg among its planned passengers was struck by drones off Malta.
You're viewing a single thread.
Greta Thunberg - how to milk one viral moment you had as a kid and make a career out of it.
How to consistently stand up for your morals and do more to make a difference than 99.999% of people on this planet.
Sorry that offends you so much.
Uh... What the fuck man? This woman was going to an active warzone to deliver aid to genocide victims. Let me repeat, she was headed to an active warzone where aid workers have routinely been targeted and murdered. If you think that's making a career out of a viral moment then you need to fuck off.
I have complex feelings regarding Greta.
Sure, she's an inspiration and she's courageous and selfless and her heart is in the right place.
Other people were on this boat who were also at risk, many other atrocities have occurred during this war and the one in Ukraine in which Greta wasn't present. Her involvement in this one is not why it's significant, and the people present at all the others were no less courageous than Greta.
In fact, there's a lot of other people being a lot more courageous receiving a lot less recognition.
Additionally, in some cases the recognition Greta receives is counter-productive. I mean, putting a world famous influencer on a humanitarian mission to a place where the aggressors want as little attention as possible isn't really a sound strategy.
All that aside, I have two main concerns:
One is that Greta is the hero of the leftists, but she's unable to engage with the right - the people who really need to alter their behavior. To them she's just an insufferable child who makes them feel guilty - that's not how you reach people and propagate change.
Second is that, I don't think she's used her influence very well. During the US campaign she was pushing the "both sides bad" narrative.
Edit: I'm happy to wear the drive-by downvotes, but I had hoped for some more compelling rebuttals - 150 downvotes deep and the best we've received is that Kamala was bad.
Edit: I’m happy to wear the drive-by downvotes, but I had hoped for some more compelling rebuttals
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It's that simple. Nothing you've said really makes sense as an argument for why Greta Thunberg shouldn't do what she does. It's just an argument that we also need other people contributing other things.
If that were true, why has my mild criticism been met with such derision?
Your complaint was that it had mostly been met with silent downvotes.
Which tracks with my point.
The rest of the world is not USA my man, my country has at least 10 political parties that go anywhere from progressive to conservative and being "right wing" can still mean they have ideas that support the environment or human rights.
We're not all like the USA where you can choose between "the right" and the "ultra right" wing party.
There are right wing parties here that support Gretas ideas. And left wing parties that disagree with her.
I can completely understand her "both sides are bad" point since politics are wildly different in the EU from the US. We have actually choice here where as the US is just voting for the lesser evil (or the greater evil in case of Trump lol).
Greta undermined the dems in the US campaign. Perhaps not enough to cost them the election, but not very bright regardless.
Given everything that has happened in the last few months that's pretty shameful.
No, the dems undermined the dems in the US. Greta is just reacting to the bad shit that the dems served in response to the republican's worse shit when they could have actually served some proper good shit.
She is not a "hero to the leftists" as much as someone trying to do the right thing. Hats off to her, but the average aid worker in a war zone is more of a hero.
Everyone is trying to do the right thing, some are more effective than others.
No. Not everyone.
People who voted for McClellan during the civil war instead of Lincoln weren't trying to do the right thing.
They were trying to make peace with slavers.
They were trying to be complicit with slavery.
Are you implying that a vote for the democrats is tantamount to making peace with slavers?
Maybe take a moment to reflect on the last several months. The republicans are implementing a new slave class. What have you done to stop them?
If the goal is more publicity rather than the aid that had a low chance of making it through, it is very smart to have a world famous influencer aboard.
Why do you assume she endangered the others rather than they chose to take a calculated risk?
So she reduced the chance of successful delivery in order to secure publicity in the near certainty that the aid could not be delivered?
Maybe just me but that doesn't seem like a good strategy.
I mean, putting a world famous influencer on a humanitarian mission to a place where the aggressors want as little attention as possible isn't really a sound strategy.
How? If anything it is sound strategy because it puts the media's eyes on the event. It's one thing to kill a bunch of nameless activists, but it's another to kill Greta Thunberg, or at least I'd like to believe it is.
One is that Greta is the hero of the leftists, but she's unable to engage with the right - the people who really need to alter their behavior.
They're never gonna change their behavior, or at least not due to messaging from the left. The right will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to civilization by the sane two thirds of society. Trying to get the right on board with good things is a fool's errand. In general, the role of leftwing activists is to either promote their own politicians or force neoliberals' hands, not persuade the right.
During the US campaign she was pushing the "both sides bad" narrative.
I mean she's right. We can argue about the tactical merits and demerits of endorsing Harris all day but the fact of the matter is that she was an absolutely terrible candidate and "What the shit? You want me to endorse that‽" is a valid position to take no matter how you personally feel about it. Greta didn't get where she is now by compromising with neoliberals and there's no reason to expect her to start now.
I mean she's right. We can argue about the tactical merits and demerits of endorsing Harris all day but the fact of the matter is that she was an absolutely terrible candidate
Sorry, if that's your opinion, having installed a fascist dictator who has ruined the global economy and set up concentration camps, then you don't have any credibility.
I don't need any credibility to say that Kamala border wall/fracking/"most lethal army in the world"/"Nothing comes to mind" Harris was anything short of absolutely terrible.
No that's true, you don't need to have any credibility to say anything you like, but when you say things that demonstrate a complete lack of reason it undermines everything else you say.
Then why do you keep posting?
On the off chance I could encourage someone to engage in some critical thinking I guess.
If everyone you meet today is an asshole.....
If everyone on lemmy thinks you're an asshole...
Whoosh
Oooh I get it. Wow. That's witty. Well done.
Well neither side has done enough, if anything, about people dying in Gaza.
Sure, but my point is that lots more people have been a lot more effective than Greta, who IMO has been counter productive.
How has she been counterproductive?
She was pushing the both sides narrative during the US campaign.
Well both sides support Israel, therefore both sides are bad.
Which US leader do you think Palestinians preferred?
Is there a USA politician that supports Palestine?
Edit; changed it a bit for clarity.
No, that would be like uh... Ms. Hawk Tuah.
Greta is what you call an activist: Someone who actually believes things and advocates for change based on her beliefs.
When I was in school, this kind of behavior was referred to as a politically involved/informed, active citizen, the kind of people without which a democratic society cannot survive or function.
Damn, that's an impressive number of down-votes!
It truly is, its the most downvotes I've seen a comment get yet.
She is a career humanitarian and environmentalist. You, on the other hand, haven’t done a damn thing with your life.
She is a career humanitarian and environmentalist
You just repeated exactly what I said.
So, people dedicate their lives to improving the world and that just pisses you off?
Pretty standard maga it would seem. No wonder we can’t have nice things.
So you like her then?
User name checks out.
I have a feeling that she would have ended up being an activist with or without any viral moments. Sure, that sort of thing helps, but she doesn’t strike me as the type of person who is out there just for the clicks and likes.
I have a feeling that she would have ended up being an activist with or without any viral moments
Kind of a "yes and no" kind of thing: she became an activist back when she was just an unknown 15yo who believed in something, and the "viral moments" have all been the results of effective activism (with the exception of some hilarious trolling of some prominent far right idiots), which is part of what effective activism IS: getting as many people as possible to notice and talk about the issues.
Oh, she certainly knows how to use publicity. No doubt about that. Also, I totally approve of using the tools at your disposal. If you’re an activist, and the media is interested in you, using that opportunity is perfectly fine be me.
But did she turn a single viral moment into a career? I would argue that publicity itself doesn’t seem to be her career, whereas activism clearly is the main thing. The way I see it, publicity is a tool she uses to enhance her activism.
BTW that Twitter bio thing was brilliant.
But did she turn a single viral moment into a career? I would argue that publicity itself doesn’t seem to be her career, whereas activism clearly is the main thing. The way I see it, publicity is a tool she uses to enhance her activism
That's the argument I was trying to make too, sorry if I was unclear 🙂
Now that she's spoken out against genocide, I can no longer tell if the people who hate her are democrats or republicans.
It is funny that she was a media darling up until the moment she started talking about Gaza. Same thing happened to Malala. You won't see either of those on cable or in talk shows any more.
Manufactured Consent, the media is pro-genocide.
Have another downvote, on the house.
I'm sure you have done plenty more, right?
Username checks out.