Extinction Rebellion

Posted on
Page
of 40
First Prev
/ 40
Next
  • I'm sure he has a point, but this is so badly written I don't want to read it. It would have needed an editor to go over it and weed out all the repetition--it could be considerably shorter.

  • River Thames #London. A classic suburban house was seen floating down
    the river, sinking into the water in yet another attempt to send an
    SOS to the government on climate inaction and draw attention to the
    threat humans face from climate change and rising sea levels.

    https://twitter.com/xrfamilies/status/11­93499925490868224?s=21

  • The predictions on the XR website are a bit vague. Is there anywhere we can can read about worse case scenarios and the areas that will be most effected?

  • Good grief..

  • Just curious - why post that? I've never heard of the author or the magazine... does it have much circulation? There's plenty of crap out there that doesn't need oxygen.

  • It is good to step outside of the echo chamber & see the opposing view from time to time.

  • It’s weird how people who utterly suck at thinking often want to write massive screeds about how they’re right, they’re the best, and they don’t have to listen to you.

  • It's much better to stay inside the echo chamber. :)

  • Calling this a 'view' is generous.

  • You would be amazed by the amount of middle aged white males triggered by Greta.

    The conspiracy theories and aggressive views displayed are quite something.

    I'm on way too many car Facebook groups for my mental health and I see the "other echo chamber" all the time and it's quite something.

  • You want to challenge your beliefs with the best possible argument though ... right? Not just the nearest idiot.

    I didn’t read much of it tbf.

  • You want to challenge your beliefs with the full range of arguments though

    Ftfy.

    As painful as it was to read - I also failed to finish it - this is representative of some (many even?) views, so important to be aware of IMO.

  • The thing is that that text doesn't contain a single argument. All it says is "you're delusional, shut the fuck up". I think we're all already aware that a certain number of people denies the urgency of fighting climate change, that text doesn't add anything, except maybe a super patronising lacquer applied to the same old bullshit.

  • You would be amazed by the amount of middle aged white males triggered by Greta

    I don’t think that description applies to the author though

  • I'm on way too many car Facebook groups for my mental health and I see the "other echo chamber" all the time and it's quite something

    Same! The biggest ‘snowflakes’ are the right wing reactionaries on Pistonheads that can’t deal with the world changing.

  • that text doesn't add anything

    To you yes. Those sharing it to their wider network as 'this guy makes a good point' clearly disagree with you.

    Discussion around it may help folks like us to counter stuff like this in future, not getting much of that on this occasion though.

  • It doesn't really matter what they think, he is not 'making a point'. His entire 'argument' reduces to "there is no real climate emergency therefore shut the fuck up and enjoy modern life".

    In order to agree with his text, you need to fundamentally agree with the premise of 'climate change is not something to be worried about'.

    We know those people exist. They have for a while. There is nothing to 'counter' either - you can't reason people out of that position, because reason is not what got them into it in the first place. And I mean, do you feel like we've had much success in 'countering' such people directly?

    What has happened is that the general discourse has shifted in the direction of more general (but not universal) acceptance of the problem. That has not been achieved by directly countering any climate change deniers, if anything it's probably better to ignore them and move the world around them, if they won't move with it.

    In short, this is some asshole playing to his audience. None of it is in any way new, neither to me nor to people who support it. It's the equivalent of a Breitbart article - nothing is gained by pretending it's more than what it is: playing to an established audience.

    (Btw, this is assuming most people have even read it. Given the style is absolutely insufferable, I doubt that - most will have gone "look this guy kind of said what I think but he sounds smart" and left it at that)

  • good summary

  • None of it is in any way new, neither to me nor to people who support it.

    It is new to those who're new to it or were vaguely aware but uncertain and have decided this is the side they'll now take as it is the first thing they tune into as shared by their friend on fb. To simply discount it as unchallengeable makes it easier for numbers to grow on this side as a result.

    Whilst it is good there's more general acceptance that there is an issue (is this quantified anywhere reliable?) it'll be tougher to bring about meaningful changes if there's a growing number on the opposite side too.

  • To simply discount it as unchallengeable makes it easier for numbers to grow on this side as a result.

    I appreciate the concern, and of course it's worth being aware of these beliefs existing - but I think we all already are. And I really don't think it makes the numbers grow, and yes, it is in a sense 'unchallengeable'. In their own internal logic, there is no argument you can make against it. If you indeed believe that climate change is not happening, or if it is, it isn't that bad, then Greta's indeed being hysterical for no reason, and wants to curtail modern achievements like being able to get to a different country by plane quickly and cheaply.

    You don't counter that by arguing with that person. As I said before, that guy is playing to his audience. If you publish a blog post arguing against him, then all you're really doing is the same thing, just for a different audience. The two audiences barely intersect, and neither of you would have a measurable impact on the overall public opinion anyway - because I'm also pretty sure texts like that one are not what make the numbers on 'his side' grow.

    Basically, while I bloody hate his text and the condescending, patronising, smug tone of the whole thing, it's not actually worth thinking too much about it. It's one of many such texts and blogs reaffirming the opinion of the 'in group', and it will not serve to convince many people who don't agree with the basic premise that climate change is a negligible concern.

    What does do that is if you, e.g., have climate change deniers appear in big media channels such as the BBC. ('Climate change deniers' here includes the ones that now accept that climate change is indeed happening, but deny that we play a part in it, and who generally downplay the whole thing.) Or if you have big politicians come on and talk about how we should probably do something, but of course we can't actually sacrifice anything for it because that would be going too far. Etc. etc.

    Those are the performances watched and seen by many of the people who'd be called the 'Undecided Voters' in polls. Some blog post by some asshole denying the problem isn't - and we'll always have those anyway, even if climate change denial became the most fringe of all fringe conspiracy theories.

  • Oh ffs.

  • Yeah that's not going to go down well. Am gonna read the whole interview later, but that interview is not going to do XR any favours.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Extinction Rebellion

Posted by Avatar for Lebowski @Lebowski

Actions