jimboston wrote:Dukasaur wrote:jimboston wrote:NomadPatriot wrote:jimboston wrote:Ok... watched these videos... but had to stop.
I agree with most of what this little girls is saying.
She didn’t write this shit though. So why do we all pretend she did?
who is pretending she did...?
So the comparison to Macaulay Culkin is more apt than it originally seemed... since she’s essentially an actor delivering someone else view and pretending it’s her own. Why do we can about this specific girl again?
Because she's done a really good job of calling out governments on their do-nothing attitude toward global warming. 90% of the world's governments have done sweet f*ck all to address global warming, besides some trivial token measures. The people who were calling them out on it were getting no attention, while the only people to get attention were soft-pedaling it and saying mealy-mouthed things like "governments aren't doing enough" instead of "governments are doing pretty much f*ck all".
Greta is the first person to cross the line and do both, to actually call them out on their inaction
and to get some major attention while doing so.
I’m not saying I disagree with what she read.
I agree with it.
I’m just saying she didn’t write it.
I have no special knowledge of Greta. A quick Google tells me that she has explicitly denied this theory of her speeches being written for her.
https://www.good.is/everyone-needs-to-read-greta-thunbergs-responses-to-the-rumors-and-lies-about-herMaybe you know something that I don't. To me, it makes no difference. If she wrote the speeches, great. If she didn't write the speeches, still great. JFK's famous speeches were written by Ted Sorensen and Ronald Reagan's famous speeches were written by Peggy Noonan. Did that make them less impactful?
So, what little I've read suggests that she does, in fact, write her own material. But even if she doesn't, it changes nothing. She has great delivery.
jimboston wrote:It’s sad we can’t believe our scientific community and they can’t get attention... but you have a young girl read something her mommy wrote, and now she’s Time’s Person of the Year? How about making some scientific team who actually has given us real data or provided real options that we still ignore??/
Sure it's sad, but it's just the human condition. We respond better to emotion than to logic. Scientists are logical, so nobody cares about them. Most of our advancements are due to science, but how many scientists have ever been famous? Archimedes, Darwin, Einstein? Three in 5,000 years? A well-read person might be able to name a few more -- Linus Pauling, Newton, Mendel, Oppenheimer -- but I doubt if any one who's not a science buff or an actual science major could name more than 10. Hell, I was a science major, and I'm having a hard time pulling the names out of cold storage.
Time doesn't decide who the public will fall in love with. They just report it.
Remember
The Fountainhead?
Ayn Rand wrote:The first campaign of the Banner was an appeal for money for a charitable cause. Displayed side by side, with an equal amount of space, the Banner ran two stories: one about a struggling young scientist, starving in a garret, working on a great invention; the other about a chambermaid, the sweetheart of an executed murderer, awaiting the birth of her illegitimate child. One story was illustrated with scientific diagrams; the other-with the picture of a loose- mouthed girl wearing a tragic expression and disarranged clothes. The Banner asked its readers to help both these unfortunates. It received nine dollars and forty-five cents for the young scientist; it received one thousand and seventy-seven dollars for the unwed mother.
Gail Wynand called a meeting of his staff. He put down on the table the paper carrying both stories and the money collected for both funds. "Is there anyone here who doesn't understand?" he asked. No one answered. He said: "Now you all know the kind of paper the Banner is to be."
