- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
They abandoned her around the time her environmental protests started being a little too effective. I mean disruptive.
they abandoned her right around the time she started to notice she wouldn’t be effective unless she started attacking capitalism as the root cause.
When did she do that? I’ve lways thought of her as liberal with rich parents who get’s to do high-publicity protests that achieve nothing and distract from the economic problem.
Effective? Come on.
I mean she’s great, gave a voice to what a lot of people have been thinking for decades before she was born. Maybe what most people think today. But there is really nothing that’s effective. It’s not dissing her, it’s just that the machine is too strong and it’s able to even use the opposition to itself for the machines purpose, like the article says.Usually. It didn’t work with Greta, so she’s just ignored.
Everything made by humans can be destroyed by humans. No social system is forever. The rest is just skill issue.
Sure. Skill issue. Says the skilled warrior changing the world.
Sure. Whatever you say.
I actually teach how to plan, execute, and assess political and social impact, beyond practicing it in my orgs. Are you aware there are plenty of disciplines working exactly on this? Your rethoric is just a way to justify your inaction. If nothing can change, it means you’re exempted from your responsibilities. Too easy.
Your teach? Wow. I thought you are a psychic since you know everything about me from one Lemmy post lol.
I hope you aren’t such s duche with you students. Anyway, in any case it makes sense to asses effectiveness every now and then. For academic purposes of nothing else.
“We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings.” Ursula K Le Guin
It’s been done before, even under more oppressive conditions. It can and will be done again.
That’s great, but nothing to do with what I’m saying.
I get it. You find it comforting to believe there’s nothing you can do to change things, so you refuse to consume anything that would challenge that notion. Otherwise, you might feel obligated to do something you aren’t willing to do, like join a cause or think critically about how you might make change.
I suppose ignorance is bliss, after all, but if you did want to challenge that notion, I’m happy to share the following:
- Palestinians being able to fish in Gaza while the IOF was distracted by the Sumud flotilla.
- The global change in public sentiment regarding Palestine and its occupation by a settler-colonialist force, including 60% of Jews in the US recognizing that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza (up from 27% in late 2023).
- International governments recognizing the state of Palestine. A move, albeit performative, indicating that governments are feeling major public pressure to act. And that was before the solidarity protests and general strikes across europe that are breaking out today.
- The successes of the BDS movement. Billions of dollars in divestments have been won from genocidal collaborators like Coca-Cola, Teva, Caterpillar, Microsoft, and countless more, even by governments and retirement indexes, along with 250+ wins in the US alone
- Spain’s announcement of a complete arms embargo against Israel, along with eight other measures against the occupation
- The success of the Mask Off Maersk campaign, a major win being the end of Maersk’s collaboration with illegal settlements in the West Bank.
- Other campaigns; like The Oakland People’s Arms Embargo, and the recently launched AIPAC Out!; uncovering Israel’s American collaborators at every level, in a way that is accessible and therefore actionable to the public.
That’s only what I could name off the top of my head
It is in this context alone that we see serious peace talks taking place, with Trump and other US negotiators getting directly involved, and Israel actually seemingly motivated to engage in negotiations on Hamas’s terms (i.e. their demands for a permanent ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid, full IOF withdrawal, prisoners exchange, resisting the disarmament of their people, etc). That deal most certainly won’t be enough, but it’s a start. We both know that Israel wouldn’t even come to the table without overwhelming pressure to do so. The cracks in the empire are showing and the empire is desperate to close them, but the thing about cracks is they tend to permanently weaken the structures that stand on them.
Yes, that’s all great, but you have completely the wrong assumptions about me and about what I said.
Nevertheless I appreciate that you gathered all that information together.
Dumb take, we have abandoned many an undefeatable system in the past, and giving people’s feelings a voice is what got us there
We have also not abandoned many systems many times, that’s not an argument. Show me the effect and disruption. I’m not against it, just right now there isn’t much there.
You can say she was the head of that flotilla and without her it would be at least much smaller and you are right, but in this case, considering what Israel did to them and there is still a lack of any real effects.
It’s incredibly hard to prove things like this so if you don’t believe it you don’t, but I don’t think the effects are just meant to be directly bringing food to Gaza. If that were the only way to measure it you’d be right. But the only thing which could possibly stop Israel is strong political pressure from the West and we are getting closer to that, the world is angry about it in a way they weren’t before. Even Germany, the most hard-line Israel supporter is changing its stance. These massive protests in Italy wouldn’t have been like this otherwise. Yeah maybe I’m wrong because these things are nebulous and slow but that’s how activism is and I think those things are real changes.
I am thinking of the political effects. I’m surprised that there doesn’t seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.
But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn’t be surprising.
I’m surprised that there doesn’t seem to be any after what they did to her and others on the boats.
This stuff takes longer than a news cycle, that was two days ago.
But on the other hand, the world has stood by for more than half a century of torture of Gazans, so it shouldn’t be surprising.
Agreed.
Greta could have become a very rich liberal grifter.
keep them Davos cheques coming in.
instead she’s risking her life to help those humanity has abandoned.
respect
And you got leftist piling on liberals for some reason
Edit: oh shit I’m in .ml my bad(not really) lol hey at least you don’t ban dissent I guess
Edit 2: Leftists once again can’t see the forest for the trees with your ideological purity test pitted against defeating a common enemy. For people so smart you really need to understand that your power lies with NUMBERS
“For some reason”
Liberals in the US are MAGA enablers. To the last individual.
Yeah what and you’re going to resist the us gov with what percent of the population?
Coward
Coward? I’m saying you need friends not enemies
Fascists and their enablers are not our friends.
I’m not a fascist enabler. I believe in personal liberty above all
Wym some reason? Y’all get off too easy imo.
Stop with the woe is me shit, you know perfectly well how complicit y’all are.
Wait so Greta is a liberal and doing right but other liberals are enables but leftists are … checks notes… circle jerking themselves to completion over a captured “ally”? Make it make sense
Greta is very clearly not a liberal. She’s been very vocally anticapitalist these past few years.
You can be liberal and anticapitalist
You quite literally cannot. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.
No, it’s not. It means I believe in personal liberty over economic system
Sure, if you ignore the meaning of both of those words.
Go on I’ll wait
She’s not that rowdy little girl anymore. Now she’s a fierce young woman.
So of course they abandoned her.
They dropped her the very moment it became clear she’s an actual leftist and wasn’t just this little kid talking about climate change.
The liberal establishment always abandons effective fellow liberals. Sanders, Mamdani, Thunberg…they’re actually trying to do something. That makes the established neolibs look ineffective and upsets their donors. So they turn their backs on the rabble rousers.
The current anger with Sanders appears to be, from an outsiders pov, that he didn’t criticize Israel by calling it a genocide soon enough.
That appears to be it.
I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.
I’d prefer it was immediate, and it’s gross that it took him so long, but all the other stuff isn’t cancelled out by that. He’s still a net positive. And he DID criticize earlier than any other us politician I can think of, and sure it Could have been even earlier and harsher, but like. Fuck. If you hate politicians for being open to changing mind based on new evidence, or reforming beliefs you don’t like, or admitting mistakes, you are AGAINST them being rational and it plays right into the hands of neoliberal propagandists.
I mean. To dismiss everything because one mistake, even if that mistake is massive, and then correcting that mistake, if belatedly, to me, says something very positive about that politician.
even if it’s clear that he’s been doubling down on that mistake when presented with the evidence and then only switched it’s become clear that the tide has begun turn?
Better late than never?
Would you rather the kind of politician that just lies constantly?
that’s what i’m getting at, he’s lying (either to himself and/or to the rest of us) and will go with whatever will cause the least friction; aka a follower, not a leader.
You mean like how he lied about the number of civilians killed on October 7th?
He has also consistently voted for Iron Dome rearmament packages, which materially supports the genocide.
He didn’t “change his mind based on new evidence”, public opinion just shifted to the point where he couldn’t get away with not calling it a genocide. The whole time he has always taken the most Israel friendly position he can get away with without losing credibility. Hell, in the very first line of his statement calling it a genocide he still insisted on repeating Isreali lies about October 7th.
They specifically mentioned the liberal establishment. You’re talking about criticism from people that probably abhor the liberal establishment even more than they do progressive liberals like Bernie.
Also I think this kind of criticism is important and I don’t know why it bothers people so much. It’s okay to be critical of things you ultimately support, either for ideological or simply for tactical reasons. It’s called critical support, and I think people should do it more often. Even if the criticism isn’t ultimately supportive, that doesn’t mean all of a person’s hate is directed in that single place. There may be more than just the surface level WHAT, like the WHY of it all and what that implies, that you are missing (or dismissing).
You have to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything, and refusal to engage in critical analysis - pretending any politician can do no wrong (or the contrary case; can do no right), getting defensive, and outright rejecting any investigation to prove or disprove your conclusion - does not fall into the category of ‘standing for something’ to me but rather overzealous team sports.
We have to practice more critical thinking, despite how badly our political class does not want us doing that. Whether it helps any specific politician win an election or not (which you can still do even with criticisms). Especially considering that it’s this kind of criticism that has made it untenable for a growing number of politicians to deny the genocide in Palestine; it’s pretty clear that the only needle that uncritical support will move is that of the progressives, towards the liberal end of the spectrum. After all, it’s our criticism of the current system and its complicity in human suffering that makes us progressive in the first place.
The term “liberal” is toxic. Liberal’s are disliked by “the right” and by progressives. They are truly useless snowflakes that do nothing but virtue signal and sell everything and everyone out that threatens their convenience and comforts.
The attachment to Israel in opposition to humanitarian ethics is only going distance people from the god they constantly claim to follow. This is in the Book
The left is pretty much splintered into different types of ideologies, levels of hostility towards conservatism, and having wildly different objectives to accomplish, so they could not agree with each other and thus rarely ever win over the right.
The right-wingers? They have unanimous hatred towards the left and seemingly united until once they defeat the left, they’ll fight and kill each other as to who gets the biggest slice of the pie.
I’m saying this because much of the left are split over this personality.
I am unsure about that.
Although I am not exactly right-winger. I do not believe there is a God, for example.
Long ago - at least that is how it seems now - “right-wingers” were laughably and infuriatingly wrong. They tried pushing evolution in schools. They were against gay rights. And so on.
Now I find that it’s the “left-wingers” who are laughably and infuriatingly wrong. They have even managed to malleate how science is defined socially. And science is not the only example - they’ve lost their minds in crime, immigration, sexuality, racism - everything - and they changed (or tried to change) all definitions. I will not go into any examples because it always starts a debate. But I will say this. If we think math is a “white supremacist construct”, then there is something that has gone very, very wrong.
I used to be a scientist and I’m a science teacher now, and science is 100% a social construct. I could go through examples of how our modern interpretation of science is based on western philosophy that is a few thousand years younger than science itself as a practice, and how this limits the scope of modern science in a materially significant way. I could go into other examples too. But you really should just go watch Dr.Fatima’s two videos “Gravity is a Social Construct, and That’s Okay”, and “Astronomy has a Colonialism Problem” on YouTube, because she does the most phenomenal exploration of the topic, and I could only (poorly) approximate the quality of her work here.
It just shows that an ambassador for one topic doesn’t have to be successful for another.
you might be proving the author’s point somewhat.
