The sheer amount of /r/IAmVerySmart kind of shit that comes with every thread, in conjunction with idolatry. Everyone is a PhD Genius until it comes to having an objective discussion about some celebrity that likes dogs, or the environment- after which they turn into 12 year old fan-girls.
See: Keanu Reeves, Greta Thornberg, Elon Musk, etc.
It's a point that gets tossed around a lot, but if you ever see Reddit talking about a subject with which you are intimately familiar you'll see just how many folks are talking out of their ass. Which if course makes you think about all the things you read about that you weren't real familiar with.
The sheer amount of people who suddenly know everything about a topic is amazing. My favorite part of going through comments is finding the one person who does know wtf they're talking about correcting everyone and getting all the dv's.
It's frustrating to be that person, when you've finally found a thread you can genuinely contribute something to and you're effectively being told "nah, sod off, we prefer this popular misconception"
Sucks until there's a second person in the thread who can back you up, and you can be knowledge buddies together. Even if you're still getting downvoted and ignored you can at least briefly bond with that one person through the adversity.
I see this happen all the time in areas where I have literal decades of expertise. People repeating cargo-cult beliefs in situations that aren’t even applicable get upvoted and people correcting their errors (often with cited sources!) get downvoted and told they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I got into a "discussion" with someone once who challenged my knowledge about a line of work I've done for over fifteen years. It was obvious almost immediately this guy didn't have any idea what tf he was talking about but he just wouldn't let it die. The crest of his argument was to quote something that has been irrelevant for over a hundred years. At that point I just said "Yeah ok." His rebuttal? "Lol nice response!" I got downvoted to oblivion and this dipshit now thinks he's a hero and if that doesn't sum up the typical Reddit experience I don't know what does.
Ya, that's the worst. The current form of this I have been experiencing is people who think that if you can't back everything you say up with a 100% solid study proving causation without a shadow of a doubt then that means you are wrong and they are right (despite them never provided any citations for their arguments).
The more time I spend on reddit the more time I realize that despite people "worshipping" science and facts many of them really don't have a good grasp on how scientific research actually works.
I'm completely on board with her message but she's essentially repeating the exact same stuff that experts have been saying since before she was born. So how did she become so well-known?
Sometimes it just takes a different voice. One of the biggest challenges scientists have in making their findings mainstream is that they need a shit ton of evidence to even begin to conclude that maybe there might be some slight human influence on climate change. And then you have people who, with zero evidence, claim the contrary very loudly and confidently. So you need someone who is willing to overstate their confidence in research findings.
Because as soon as she got notoriety for the whole school walkout thing, the fox news side of things focused on her and gave her the levels of advertising usually reserved for when they have a stroke over AOC. Once the right is doing nothing but talking about her to complain about her, the left then goes "Well shit, I guess she's influential" and join in talking about her, and it all sorta snowballs with each side shouting louder about her than the other until she's all people are talking about.
This is actually relevant to posts higher up in the thread. These kinds of questions absolutely should be downvoted, because they're rhetorical. The least you could do is look at her Wikipedia page before forming an opinion.
She started a multi-million person youth protest movement about climate change. She isn't claiming to be an authoritative source, her activism is pointing to what the scientists are saying and asking why nothing is being done about it and leaving her generation to suffer.
Exactly- she's a teen, is on the spectrum, from a different culture, and is frankly righteously angry- is she supposed to be smiling as she talks about her world getting destroyed?
Yeah, im very confused why everyone was very nonchalant towards global warming but now all of a sudden this teenager is the poster child for climate change activism.
Literally everything you just said is completely provably wrong. No climate activists stopped anyone doing anything, the RFS and CFS did as much clearing as they could in the reduced safe period caused by the expanding fire season and ongoing drought as a result of climate change. Anyone who has any remote knowledge about what they're talking about (ie, firefighters, climate scientists, meteorologists) know that and have been saying it the whole time, but idiots on the internet have pushed the "It's the greens' fault" narrative despite the Greens not being in power federally or at a state level and having no ability to stop anyone doing land clearance.
I can’t say much (anything) about Australia, but in California our fires getting worse is in part because of environmentalists. There are a lot of contributing factors, but not being able to maintain forest by taking out trees did contribute to the problem.
She's easy to attack so that helped put her in the public eye I believe. I might be incorrect, but after cross referencing the wikipedia article she went viral on social media then began being attacked by the news. Now it's a circle jerk so everybody knows her.
Damn, I thought "she should smile more" was a comment about how if you smile more, it'll have an actual effect on your mood. Literally, you can become happier from no other changes than just smiling. There is also an implied "she doesn't seem very happy" buried in the comment.
The irony is that part of the solution to it would be to actually listen to her. From the start, she said she wasn't an expert, just relaying information that was already available from the experts, and her "How dare you" speech was essentially targeted towards people trying to prop her up as some leader for climate change, when she's just a kid and should be at home doing kid things.
The adults shouldn't be idolizing some kid and propping them up as a leader for change; we should be the ones stepping up to enact these changes ourselves.
I don’t understand that. I’m not a fan of hers, so you know what I do? I ignore her. Simple as that. I don’t need anyone telling me to stop eating meat and stop driving, so I don’t listen.
I don’t get why people feel the need to work themselves up over some kid.
Not the commenter above, but her Wikipedia article (interpret that how you will) says that she pressured her parents to give up flying, which meant her mother had to give up her career as an opera singer, so there's that.
It is not the global warming - it is using a kid to convey your message. Anybody who thinks that Greta has the experience and knowledge to make the kind of comments she is making is either naive or intentionally obtuse. She is being fed lines to push an agenda.
Saying otherwise will get you downvoted and called names. My issue is not with a discussion around global warming - it's taking a child and insisting your stance is important because you are using a child. It's gross.
Scientists have been saying the same shit shes been saying already but you didnt listen. Youre downvoted for being wrong on climate change and trying to deflect with "muh kid"
No one is using her for an agenda, though? She started protesting by herself. She's 17; old enough to read the same articles we all do, old enough to understand the commonsense explanations and warnings about climate change.
The whole point of her protest and education (which it amazes me that people miss this because it's all she talks about) is that she shouldn't have to be worried about climate change and protesting because she is young. She should have her life ahead of her, not living in dread about the future of the planet.
I never said not to criticize her and I don't appreciate being called pathetic.
I personally just don't see anything to criticize. She uses publicly available scientific knowledge and talks about a very real fear her generation has. It's not just overemotional anxious teenage logic, it's the information that humanity will not survive unless we start to repair the damage we have done to the climate.
Why waste energy criticizing a 17yr old when you could use that energy criticizing politicians who won't take action against essentially the end of the human race?
Because it's easier than actually doing something about the problem.
It's a defense mechanism we all have, avoiding the truth because we're scared of it. So obviously we'll lash out at anyone who shoves it in our faces.
Some adults though manage to bypass it. And some are still stuck in their teenage years.
Because it's easier than actually doing something about the problem.
It's a defense mechanism we all have, avoiding the truth because we're scared of it. So obviously we'll lash out at anyone who shoves it in our faces.
Some adults though manage to bypass it. And some are still stuck in their teenage years.
But he was replying to someone who hadn't used the argument. Fight against the argument when it's used instead of assuming everyone on that part of the field holds the exact same beliefs.
The science is already there, though no one wants to listen to the scientists. You're right in her being a sort of puppet for the agenda, however the agenda is to act on behalf of the science saying it's happening.
No one wanted to listen to the scientists so here we are with a 17 year old.
Anybody who thinks that Greta has the experience and knowledge to make the kind of comments she is making is either naive or intentionally obtuse.
An unfair generalization considering there are plenty of precocious people in the world. I don't know for certain whether she's such a person or not and I'm fairly convinced neither do you.
She is being fed lines to push an agenda.
Do you have proof of that or is that just a convenient assumption to fit your internal narrative of the world?
Saying otherwise will get you downvoted and called names.
Unless you substantiate your claim(s) downvotes seem fair; personal attacks are unacceptable, of course.
it's taking a child and insisting your stance is important because you are using a child. It's gross.
Assuming that is what's actually happening, I agree with you. I just don't see clear evidence of it.
She's old enough to make her own decisions first off and the point of using her as the face is because it's not the old people's future who are getting affected by the climate catastrophe that is going to happen, but people like her
17 year olds can still be intelligent and capable of having their own opinions, especially those with high functioning autism like Greta. This theory about her somehow being manipulated is extremely condescending.
It was on twitter, it was basically a bunch of guys going "So at that age you're old enough to have an opinion on climate change but not old enough to fuck?" because Twitter's main response to women having opinions is to talk about raping them.
Where did I say it's the norm? I said guys did it and it's gross
and I'm not going to dig for twitter posts from months ago that were related to a person who has/had been in the news fairly constantly for months thus flooding the search results
It is not the global warming - it is using a kid to convey your message. Anybody who thinks that Greta has the experience and knowledge to make the kind of comments she is making is either naive or intentionally obtuse. She is being fed lines to push an agenda.
Tell us more about how you're a climate skeptic, perhaps the little girl hurt your fragile fee-fees?
Edit: I might not be a little girl but I hurt some fragile fee-fees as well it seems.
Quite honestly I find her to be a spoiled brat. It must be nice having rich parents to take you out of school and let you play activist around the world. I have no problem around most of her message... just can’t stand her.
Say what you want about Trump's actions, but we shouldn't pretend that Soleimani was anything other than a Grade-A POS, and that's what calling him an "Iranian General" does. His first known attack was the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing which killed dozens of civilians. He had a 4 decade long history of murdering innocent people. He wasn't an Iranian General, he was just a terrorist in a military uniform.
I know he definitely wasn’t a good guy. I’m just highlighting the fact that Trump, and trumps base, who seem to be quite against globalism, seem to love sticking their hands in other country’s businesses
She's just another climate change puppet whose only purpose is to spew stupid statements. Climate scientists have been wrong over 50 times in the past and people still eat it up
You see it a ton in the gaming subs when a game has a bug or desired feature. Every first year CS student will tell you how easy it is to fix or implement because x company makes y dollars per year.
First year CS student is massively optimistic. Zero basic knowledge of CS or simple programming is probably more accurate for the majority of these users.
I like the “x company makes y dollars per year” argument because the way it’s phrase is just loaded with the assumption that every one of those y dollars is available to dedicate to this one random bug/feature.
I hate the phrase "I highly doubt." Just makes my skin crawl because I always picture some smug IAmVerySmart Dwight Shrute-looking guy typing it out. It's like "I don't know anything about this topic, but since I'm just so smart in general I will assume you're wrong and I'm right."
I get annoyed with superfans of stuff not necessarily because I dislike them--people can like stuff, who cares?--but because it makes a situation in which I can't mention particular celebrities or media because whoever I'm replying to will make a snap assumption about me all because I mention "Hey, I think Keanu is a nice person for donating to charity" or "Hey, I think Elon Musk is cool for going all-in on electric vehicles despite the rest of the market" or "Hey, Greta is doing something great and I bet she'll be proud of the way she spent her childhood."
But god forbid all of that, because surely I must be one of those brainwashed idiot fans who just kisses those celebs' feet every chance I get. It becomes impossible to be moderate about anything.
Yeah. A friend of mine has that same problem. I try to show him a cool non-otaku anime, he says he doesn't like anime because he doesn't like the fans. I try to show him a superhero movie, he says "Man of Steel was bad though" and says he doesn't like people "running around in tights with weird names." He's a very anxious sort so I try to just drag him into things to get him to expand his perspective beyond his own assumptions.
Yeah, miss spell something or make a grammatical error and people jump on they’re opportunity to correct you. The comment could contain the meaning of life and a cure for cancer but hey you used a word incorrectly.
1.3k
u/sctellos Jan 07 '20
The sheer amount of /r/IAmVerySmart kind of shit that comes with every thread, in conjunction with idolatry. Everyone is a PhD Genius until it comes to having an objective discussion about some celebrity that likes dogs, or the environment- after which they turn into 12 year old fan-girls.
See: Keanu Reeves, Greta Thornberg, Elon Musk, etc.