World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I mean the scientists have been loud and clear. So have some politicians, but that's not a special "story" for the media. So it just happened that a very vocal (at the time) little Girl got a lot of attention, because it seemed so special.
But how does what she is saying distract from the real issue? That's not an attack, I'm genuinely curious what you think the real issue is and how she distracts from it..
It's not what she's saying, it's the messenger.
Do you think she's the type of person that a climate change laggard would respect, or want to engage with?
Her argument for being vocal is that her and her generation will have to live with the consequences of our fuckups the longest and hardest. I think that's pretty valid. Also, she wasn't "elected by the central climate movement council to be their representative", if anyone, the media "elected" her and gave her a platform. So maybe be mad at them for not choosing someone "better"?
There are plenty of old white men with respectable titles saying the exact same thing as her. If a "climate change laggard" wants to hear the same message in a deeper voice, they certainly can. For those who can be moved to action at all (and there are definitely many who are "too far gone" in some conspiracy bullshit) she can be effective for many, especially younger people who have to be shaken from their stupor. So I think it's a bit critical to "tell the girl to shut up".
Surprise, but if you stop generate energy by oil you can't have hard industry. It is quite difficult to cast steel without huge energy consumption. And aluminum is even more difficult. But for some reason, no one wants to ride horses and abandon airplanes. Them can stop buy industrial products. And problem will gone.
And no, strangling heavy industry in your country until it is evacuated to China is not a fight for the global environment.
It is convenient, of course, to tell what idiots everyone around is without having worked a single day in heavy industry. And in Greta's case, without having worked a day at all, apparently. I suggest she work at the factory for a couple of years and then repeat her statements.
And it is better to live for a couple of years in a country with a less mild climate. Let's say where it is -30 in winter. Surely she doesn't hope that all 9 billion people will fit into the warm bosom of the Gulf Stream? Pollution from heating is also very significant. We don't even turn off cars here in some cities because then we just won't start them.
Oof, just say what you mean
Ok. She's a vapid twenty year old with no life experience and nothing to say. She has no expertise, and she's never suffered any inconvenience to prevent climate change.
Never suffered any inconvenience? Like, have you seen how she travels? But also..
What expertise do you need to say "stop adding carbon to the atmosphere" at this point? Everyone lives here, we all should have something to say about what is inevitably coming down the pike - especially the young. You just come across as someone who has everything to lose wanting those with nothing to lose to sit down, shut up, buckle up, and just be grateful for the ride to whatever hell we're heading to.
Honestly no, but however it is it's part of her brand. She's a climate change super star, she could literally spend the rest of her life putting her name on books written by ghost writers and make 10 times the amount really achievable by the working class. Everyone does some backpacking with questionable modes of transport in their 20s. Not everyone builds a media empire out of it.
None. Sadly however there is no "stop adding carbon to the atmosphere" button, and we need to figure out how to do it. You can ride your bike to work all you like, but the kind of reduction we need is going to come from polluting industries. Technology and governance is going to solve climate change, not cycling.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Greta isn't promoting meaningful change.