You must log in or # to comment.
Look, liberals being evil is news. The good Greta brings to the world is news. Liberals abandoning people is not. Everybody abandons people that no longer reflect their political goals. Like, John Fetterman. Dude ran as a progressive economic populist and the American left loved him. Then he outed himself as some republican-lite zionist and now his entire former base hates him. And for good reason mind you; fuck that guy. But there is no unique sin in abandoning political leaders. Greta is simply more morally consistent and righteous than liberals.
As ever, centrists are just fascists when scratched.
Liberal is a dirty word.
They’re conservatives who have gay and black friends.
They have one black friend who they are moderately polite to, but by any real metrics they are acquaintances at best.
On the other hand look at the Right wing Clowns celebrating the kidnapping of Greta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TX2tu6J0JY
I may not like Greta, but credit where credit is due, She’s brave. (Also Fuck NuxTaku you zionist pig, I heard your family is in Israel)
Liberal ‘leaders’ abandonment. There needs to be an understanding that leadership is no longer following the will of the people in the United States. On either the left or the right. This fact is more of a cause of why things are so crazy than anything the people are doing or wanting
At least in the United States
Also: Israel is currently a terrorist state
Also Israel now owns tiktok for a propaganda machine
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.
Looked like she was always pushing the marxist position to me. I mean, this mostly started when she was playing with the EU “aristocracy”.
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.
Y’all got to take the word “distract” out of your vocabulary. Israel is not committing genocide to distract from the Epstein files.
I don’t really know or care much about Greta Thuneberg. But I wouldn’t criticize her unless my activism was objectively more effective than hers…and I don’t think that describes either of us.
That might have been the case some years ago when she was very young, but it is clear that her political consciousness has evolved significantly since then. How many of us can say that we held the same political views as teenagers as we do now?
it happens… some people put a lot of effort into it at a young age. Although looking back, I now realize that that wasn’t normal.
Wasn’t that also when she started being critical of the impact of capitalism on the environment? 🤔
It’s going to always come down to wealth inequality, which is bred by unregulated capitalism, which is bribed into existence by money in politics.
And getting politicians to reject money is impossible since they don’t want to end up on the eating side of the inequality gap.
I think the opposite. The climate thing hasn’t been working as well, so they are flipping to the other side of the coin to push their authoritarianism.
Or maybe I just have an American bias. I’m too use to watching the false dichotomy see-sawing ever couple decades.
This isn’t at all to say her original stance was misguided. It is to say that she recognises genocide and ecocide come from the same root. Systems of power that destroy ecosystems also destroy people, also destroy planets, also destroy worlds. She is in many ways simply displaying a logical consistency, as much as a moral one, about the interconnected nature of the evils that plague our civilisation. And this is where she broke with a liberal class who see evils selectively and in terms framed and dictated by empire.
hear hear! Too many people who love the “first they came for” poem who still think Palestine is a pesky wedge issue being used against their boys in blue.
It can’t be both?
Its not like you can’t be disgusted by Israel, the neo-british empire they are a part of along with Hamas that is all too happy to be their handy little patsy whenever they need an Oswald or Crooks. Or at least, I don’t find that opinion to be a challenging one to have.
You can, but you’d be putting responsibility for a genocide on a large group of the people being genocided which fyi is extremely fucking stupid and morally bankrupt
I don’t really understand what you’re saying or which bit you’re responding to, both of what?
Libs are so used to cosplaying a smart skeptic with their “how about both sides bad? 😌😌😌 You can do two things at once (pause for applause)” that they don’t even bother to parse anything before belting out old reliable
I just felt like people got tired of her and didn’t read as much about her, so not as much reason to feature her
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.
I completely agree.
The left needs to stop letting liberals define them.
I don’t think it is toxic, as much as it is almost always misused. Read the following and tell me how many people you know have been using the term correctly.
For leftists that’s exactly who we’re talking about when we say liberals. The right to private property and equality and the consent of the governed are logically incompatible. Right liberals (e.g. US Republican party) emphasise the former, and moderate liberals (e.g. US Democratic party) pay lip service to the latter while only actually protecting the former. It’s really only about property in the end.
They are not logically incompatible, but we will have to make clear and specific decisions about where one ends and the other begins.
Unless you are asking me to live in a society where I must share my toothbrush with others because I am not allowed to keep any private property.
I do believe in private property: with modest, reasonable limits. Which we can and will discuss the details of over time, and I understand that will likely become a heated discussion at times, but I believe it is an inevitable and necessary one. Does that disqualify me from being a leftist? Does it make me a liberal too? Let me know.
Private property in this context means things which generate/are used to generate capital, not just any kind of object which people might have and use. The important distinction is that capital is social, it is a means of coercing others to do work for you. That’s true for a factory, where people work for the owner, or for a rented property where the tenant must work to pay the owner. It’s true in a way even for wages - when you spend money you are buying the products of people’s labour (which under capitalism was not produced in a just way). It’s not the case for your toothbrush.
The distinction that liberalism made was that everyone should in theory be allowed to own private property rather than royals appointed by divine right and hereditary nobility they delegated some power to. Not that in the 1700s we were suddenly allowed to have our own clothes for the first time in history.
It’s not the case for your toothbrush.
Isn’t it though? I didn’t make my toothbrush. It came from the toothbrush factory. In fact, it’s an electric toothbrush. Which presumably requires a lot of somewhat high tech inputs and resources to create. Would someone have developed this innovation without some economic pressure to do so? I’m not totally convinced. I think there is some role for capital in that sense. Maybe I’m wrong.
Thank you for taking my somewhat tongue in cheek comment so generously though. My humor is not always placed appropriately and doesn’t always come across well, but it sometimes provokes people to respond, and I’m simply trying to learn and keep an open mind, and I appreciate your time and effort in sharing your knowledge.
I’m coming for that toothbrush 😈
I wouldn’t say those three things are inherently logically incompatible, but there would be a lot of grey areas.
The power structure of the federal government doesn’t make it any easier to actually exercise the federal government to accomplish helpful objectives, but making things worse is a relatively easy exercise.
The focus on state level politics seems much more meaningful to actually accomplish any goals, since at least there is not as big of a hurdle where land and money have more power/representation than real people.
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.
