Social Greta Thunberg Megathread

[avenue94]

Well what would of happened if they didn't, they make it to Gaza then what? you think Hamas won't take her hostage in exchange for ransom ?

Sounds like a problem for her home country then. Let's not pretend Israel would be sad about that or lose sleep over it.

 

[ShadowRun]

You mean they didn’t get the Greta treatment.? I’m sure people will be outraged

 

[Protectandserve]

The more pictures I see of her the more I am convinced she is legitimately very mentally unwell.

 

[lsa]

The more pictures I see of her the more I am convinced she is legitimately very mentally unwell.

maybe her having autism could be a reason

 

[Protectandserve]

maybe her having autism could be a reason

Legit think it’s more than that

 

[lsa]

Legit think it’s more than that

based on pictures?

 

[Andy Capp]

Maybe try explaining it better

Sorry if you're too stupid to understand. But you can't fix stupid.

 

[Andy Capp]

An Alpha would not get emotional over her.
Sure it was a stunt but if people are so manipulated by corporate media to get emotional over a political stunt, then they must live a hateful existence.
The question the rage media won’t ask because it does not sell boner pills is where was she seized?
Instead it’s been boiled down for the dummies to ether hate her or hate Israel.

This entire thread is fed by people living a hateful existence.

whoah, hadnt noticed this thread before. A bunch of right wing climate denialists circle jerking. As expected

Seeing all those banned accounts on the first page or two was handy though; it helped remind me of who some of these more recent accounts likely belong to. A shitbag is going to stink no matter the join date, if you know what I mean.

 

[Stoic1]

She has the earmarks of fetal alcohol syndrome.

 

[Deleted member 592570]

You have to resort to this childish drivel because you know you're full of shit

So how much greenhouse gas emissions is an acceptable amount provided you're fighting greenhouse gas emissions?

What's the cut off point?

And what effect does imposing draconian regulations on countries like the UK and Canada have when countries like China and India are not helping even thought they contribute far more emissions?

As usual, it's all just feel good bullshit that has no effect.

 

[BoomStronk]

So how much greenhouse gas emissions is an acceptable amount provided you're fighting greenhouse gas emissions?

What's the cut off point?

And what effect does imposing draconian regulations on countries like the UK and Canada have when countries like China and India are not helping even thought they contribute far more emissions?

As usual, it's all just feel good bullshit that has no effect.

What's feel good nonsense? What have I said thays feel good, or nonsense?

Were you describing your preceding post? Because that is all a bunch of nonsense that seems obviously intended to make you feel like a safe boy, at the expense of thinking properly about this that might be scary.

For example:

1)China is a world leader in green energy and renewables. Its per capita ghg emissions are very low, and it's helped drive the cost of renewables down through its manufacturing and development. You couldn't have picked a dumber country for an example.

2) cut off points in terms of atmospheric c02 are a robustly discussed point among climate scientists. You asksd this as though jt was aome kind of gotcha. You'd know this if you had any semblance pf a respectable thought about the issue, rather than plugging your ears and calling a Swedish activist names.

3) there is a difference between systemic, cultural takes on climate change (you idiots in here circle jerking are a clear example of the denialist, "everything's fine keep giving our money to fossil fuel companies because America fuck yeah" culture in America. This is what needs to change, not individual consumption habits per se. You seem to be using gretas "carbon footprint" as a method of dismissing her and calling her hypocritical. This misses the point. The climate will be pushed over a cliff or it won't based not on individuals daily behavior, but by government regulation, political pressure and coalition forming around the issue. Obviously. Again, if you had actually read or thought about this stuff you'd know that the concept kf "carbon footprint" itself was generated by the fossil fuel industry - BP specifically, I believe - in order to redirect attention from the sorts of things that will actually control climate change (the things mentioned above - political, governmental mainly), and have people focus on chasing after each other pointing fingers abojt consumption while the fossil fuel companies continue to rakenin billions.

Doesn't it make you feel ashamed to realize you're just bleating on, repeating the bullshit corporate talking points.

I can't imagine being so stupid as to think the collective scientists on the planet are all wrong or deceitful while you idiots have googled the truth of things. I can't imagine being so hateful as to be spitting venom at a young woman concerned with the future liveability of the planet.

How delicate your little egos clearly are that you need to deploy such robust defenses

 

[Deleted member 592570]

What's feel good nonsense? What have I said thays feel good, or nonsense?

Were you describing your preceding post? Because that is all a bunch of nonsense that seems obviously intended to make you feel like a safe boy, at the expense of thinking properly about this that might be scary.

For example:

1)China is a world leader in green energy and renewables. Its per capita ghg emissions are very low, and it's helped drive the cost of renewables down through its manufacturing and development. You couldn't have picked a dumber country for an example.

2) cut off points in terms of atmospheric c02 are a robustly discussed point among climate scientists. You asksd this as though jt was aome kind of gotcha. You'd know this if you had any semblance pf a respectable thought about the issue, rather than plugging your ears and calling a Swedish activist names.

3) there is a difference between systemic, cultural takes on climate change (you idiots in here circle jerking are a clear example of the denialist, "everything's fine keep giving our money to fossil fuel companies because America fuck yeah" culture in America. This is what needs to change, not individual consumption habits per se. You seem to be using gretas "carbon footprint" as a method of dismissing her and calling her hypocritical. This misses the point. The climate will be pushed over a cliff or it won't based not on individuals daily behavior, but by government regulation, political pressure and coalition forming around the issue. Obviously. Again, if you had actually read or thought about this stuff you'd know that the concept kf "carbon footprint" itself was generated by the fossil fuel industry - BP specifically, I believe - in order to redirect attention from the sorts of things that will actually control climate change (the things mentioned above - political, governmental mainly), and have people focus on chasing after each other pointing fingers abojt consumption while the fossil fuel companies continue to rakenin billions.

Doesn't it make you feel ashamed to realize you're just bleating on, repeating the bullshit corporate talking points.

I can't imagine being so stupid as to think the collective scientists on the planet are all wrong or deceitful while you idiots have googled the truth of things. I can't imagine being so hateful as to be spitting venom at a young woman concerned with the future liveability of the planet.

How delicate your little egos clearly are that you need to deploy such robust defenses

That was a lot of word salad to not address any of my points. What does per capita matter? It's total carbon emissions that is the problem.

 

[BoomStronk]

That was a lot of word salad to not address any of my points. What does per capita matter? It's total carbon emissions that is the problem.

You don't have any points. You have corporate talking points and bullying memes. If you actually wanted to discuss this, you can find an answer to this in my post.

 

[Son of Jamin]

What's feel good nonsense? What have I said thays feel good, or nonsense?

Were you describing your preceding post? Because that is all a bunch of nonsense that seems obviously intended to make you feel like a safe boy, at the expense of thinking properly about this that might be scary.

For example:

1)China is a world leader in green energy and renewables. Its per capita ghg emissions are very low, and it's helped drive the cost of renewables down through its manufacturing and development. You couldn't have picked a dumber country for an example.

2) cut off points in terms of atmospheric c02 are a robustly discussed point among climate scientists. You asksd this as though jt was aome kind of gotcha. You'd know this if you had any semblance pf a respectable thought about the issue, rather than plugging your ears and calling a Swedish activist names.

3) there is a difference between systemic, cultural takes on climate change (you idiots in here circle jerking are a clear example of the denialist, "everything's fine keep giving our money to fossil fuel companies because America fuck yeah" culture in America. This is what needs to change, not individual consumption habits per se. You seem to be using gretas "carbon footprint" as a method of dismissing her and calling her hypocritical. This misses the point. The climate will be pushed over a cliff or it won't based not on individuals daily behavior, but by government regulation, political pressure and coalition forming around the issue. Obviously. Again, if you had actually read or thought about this stuff you'd know that the concept kf "carbon footprint" itself was generated by the fossil fuel industry - BP specifically, I believe - in order to redirect attention from the sorts of things that will actually control climate change (the things mentioned above - political, governmental mainly), and have people focus on chasing after each other pointing fingers abojt consumption while the fossil fuel companies continue to rakenin billions.

Doesn't it make you feel ashamed to realize you're just bleating on, repeating the bullshit corporate talking points.

I can't imagine being so stupid as to think the collective scientists on the planet are all wrong or deceitful while you idiots have googled the truth of things. I can't imagine being so hateful as to be spitting venom at a young woman concerned with the future liveability of the planet.

How delicate your little egos clearly are that you need to deploy such robust defenses

China, really? They have higher emissions per capita than the UK and the EU.

 

[Blazeblack]

I honestly don't get it. The only people I know mention her are conservatives who watch fox news. No one else I know talks about her.

 

[Stoic1]

What's feel good nonsense? What have I said thays feel good, or nonsense?

Were you describing your preceding post? Because that is all a bunch of nonsense that seems obviously intended to make you feel like a safe boy, at the expense of thinking properly about this that might be scary.

For example:

1)China is a world leader in green energy and renewables. Its per capita ghg emissions are very low, and it's helped drive the cost of renewables down through its manufacturing and development. You couldn't have picked a dumber country for an example.

2) cut off points in terms of atmospheric c02 are a robustly discussed point among climate scientists. You asksd this as though jt was aome kind of gotcha. You'd know this if you had any semblance pf a respectable thought about the issue, rather than plugging your ears and calling a Swedish activist names.

3) there is a difference between systemic, cultural takes on climate change (you idiots in here circle jerking are a clear example of the denialist, "everything's fine keep giving our money to fossil fuel companies because America fuck yeah" culture in America. This is what needs to change, not individual consumption habits per se. You seem to be using gretas "carbon footprint" as a method of dismissing her and calling her hypocritical. This misses the point. The climate will be pushed over a cliff or it won't based not on individuals daily behavior, but by government regulation, political pressure and coalition forming around the issue. Obviously. Again, if you had actually read or thought about this stuff you'd know that the concept kf "carbon footprint" itself was generated by the fossil fuel industry - BP specifically, I believe - in order to redirect attention from the sorts of things that will actually control climate change (the things mentioned above - political, governmental mainly), and have people focus on chasing after each other pointing fingers abojt consumption while the fossil fuel companies continue to rakenin billions.

Doesn't it make you feel ashamed to realize you're just bleating on, repeating the bullshit corporate talking points.

I can't imagine being so stupid as to think the collective scientists on the planet are all wrong or deceitful while you idiots have googled the truth of things. I can't imagine being so hateful as to be spitting venom at a young woman concerned with the future liveability of the planet.

How delicate your little egos clearly are that you need to deploy such robust defenses

Absolutely no metrics of performance.

Kennedy has a few questions.

 

[Sir Punchalot]

You mean they didn’t get the Greta treatment.? I’m sure people will be outraged

I always love how these people shout "Peace for Palestine" and "Peace for Gaza" when most Palestinians - certainly the young ones - always assert that peace is what they do not want. Has the world has ever had a group of people that was comparable in stupidity to current Palestine supporters?

 

[Sir Punchalot]

Why can't there be a famous environmentalist that doesn't piss off half the population?

Well, when the other half of the population insists on celebrating stupidity, I guess this is the situation we're going to be stuck with for a while.

It sure was different in the 80s and 90s. We had some pretty solid environmentalists back then. People who didn't act like children, knew what they were talking about, and could open their mouths without insulting your intelligence. They even did something called "reading books." Or wrote them themselves, in addition to long, insightful, well written magazine articles. Some also worked in universities, which back then were actual universities and not indoctrination camps. And they accomplished something, probably because they had bigger concerns than building their Instagram accounts and proving what good people they were. And people didn't get pissed off.

 

[Thai Domi]

Not gonna scroll 150 pages and search yielded no results.

Has anyone mentioned that there was a GT sex doll on the market...5 years ago

 

[Osculater]

Not gonna scroll 150 pages and search yielded no results.

Has anyone mentioned that there was a GT sex doll on the market...5 years ago