Greta Thunberg

Since I noticed that Timothy Nelson5 got hit with a card and subsequently banned for his post on this topic, I’m actually curious—what exactly was so controversial about that flagged post? I'm asking because there's a pretty good chance I might end up writing something similar and getting slapped with a card myself, all without knowing what specific line the moderation team is aiming at when they hand out penalties for posts like this.

I’m attaching the full post here, so I’d really appreciate it if someone could point out exactly which parts triggered the cards—basically, what is it that the mods think shouldn't be written, given that it carries such a penalty?

Timothy Nelson5 said:Let's take a moment to actually analyze Greta Thunberg herself and the people who are recklessly manipulating her—her frustrations, her fears, and even her handicaps.
In reality, are they just abusing her?

Who actually stole anything from her?
That Greta was born into a world of abundance, a world built by the hard work and grit of previous generations. Who is this kid to lecture anyone about anything?

Besides, those aren't even her own words.
She didn't write those speeches; her manipulators did.

My daughter is right around Greta's age.
And she goes to one of the most demanding prep schools in the US (based on this year's entrance exam results). But even then, my daughter wouldn't dream of lecturing world leaders about things she doesn't actually—well, have a clue about.

For over 30 years, scientists haven't been able to reach a consensus on even a single major element of this entire subject. That claim that 97% of scientists "agree" is nothing more than a blatant lie pushed by a radical activist, John Cook, who's a comic book artist by trade. It's quite the opposite; less than 0.2% of scientific papers cite CO2 as the dominant and key factor in climate. Most of these scientists don't deny changes are happening or that a problem exists, but the vast majority oppose fueling this kind of hysteria.

I've watched her, and all I see is a very unfortunate girl who needs help, for her own good.
I'd suggest everyone watch the footage, but mute the sound and just look at the expressions on her face.

Regardless of anyone's stance on this issue, manipulating a girl who is autistic, has Asperger, and is so consumed by fear that she's practically unable to attend school (so it's not like she's "skipping class as a form of protest")—that is just wrong.

And what kind of message does that send to our kids?
Don't go to school?
Just walk out whenever you're unhappy?

That's not the way!

I'm asking the authorities here to point out exactly which sections of this post fall under the "cardable" category, so we can all learn from a concrete example of what isn't allowed under the rules of this forum.

Thanks.

I'm also interested in hearing the answer to that question!

The opinion expressed in that post is based on real premises. I only see a reason for a card protest because the data presented wasn't backed up by links to actual articles.

Also, why does Reddit side with the propaganda this time, just like they have countless times before?

Common sense implies questioning every single viewpoint or opinion. By censoring that scrutiny, you aren't educating anyone—you're just spreading propaganda instead of doing something useful.

Since we're talking about climate, there are a few fundamental questions that the climate propaganda fails to answer:
1. Even back in elementary school, we learned that Earth goes through warm and ice ages throughout its existence—on average, how long do the warm periods last versus the ice ages?
2. How long has this current warm period lasted, or rather, how long ago did the last ice age end?
3. What were the CO2 concentrations in the years immediately preceding the last ice age compared to what they are now?
4. What is the exact percentage of human influence on global warming? In other words, what would the situation look like today if humans had zero impact?

It's undeniable that humans influence many parts of Earth's ecosystem, but let's stick to the facts without pushing propaganda.

Thanks for understanding,
Noah Fowler3

I'm jumping in on this question too.
This is some seriously interesting stuff! 👍

I’m not a moderator for the "politics" sub, but since other folks interested in this messy topic are chiming in—and I've been wading through this stuff for about 30 years now—I'll toss in my two cents.

That Greta girl was born into a world of plenty, a world built by the hard work and grit of previous generations. Who does this brat think she is, lecturing anyone about anything?

This is straight-up hate speech, and not just aimed at Greta, but at every young person stepping up in these movements or any social cause that dares to criticize the world they're inheriting. Because apparently, "brats" aren't allowed to speak up when it comes to a world that’s supposedly perfect and flawless because "previous generations" built it.

So, if you're 16, you don't get a vote, let alone a voice? How long does that last? Can I, at 62, look someone who's 40 in the eye and say, "Listen, kid, you've got no right to critique what my generation built"? 🤔 Or should we follow Joža Manolić's logic and claim everyone under 90 is just a brat? 🤣

Furthermore, the OP claims Greta is being manipulated by adults. He says he raised his own smart daughter well enough that she doesn't feel the need to criticize—so I guess that’s the ultimate proof against manipulation? That's a stretch. 🤔

Yeah, sure, back when I was 16, I used to push back against the status quo too (there was this whole drama involving a student paper at my high school), and back then, that was labeled as me being "manipulated" by bourgeois revisionists or nationalists (it was 1973, after all) or some such nonsense—my principal even called my old man in for a chat. So, I'm a little allergic to this reverse logic, even half a century later. It’s nothing new; kids rebelling against the older crowd is a staple. Honestly, it's necessary! 👍

For over 30 years, scientists haven't been able to agree on a single major point regarding this topic. That claim that 97% of scientists 'agree' is nothing but a blatant lie pushed by some radical activist, John Cook, who happens to be a comic book artist by trade. The reality is the exact opposite: less than 0.2% of scientific papers cite CO2 as the primary driver of climate.

This is pure, blatant manipulation—just a flat-out lie. It's just copy-pasting falsehoods from websites that peddle hysteria, claiming global warming isn't real and everything is just fine; mostly in the US, tied to the Republican Party. You can find out in two minutes via Google that that 97% consensus has absolutely nothing to do with some comic book guy. Here are the first three hits you get when you search "climate change consensus 97%."

scientific consensus shows that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree *: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Plus, most major scientific orgs globally have put out statements backing this up.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
In 2004, Naomi Oreskes published a short paper in the journal Science concluding there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature that global warming was caused by humans.

Once that paper dropped, the backlash was way nastier than anyone expected. It actually pushed Naomi Oreskes and her partner Erik Conway to double down on their research, which eventually turned into the book *Merchants of Doubt*. It basically exposes how a tiny circle of industry-connected scientists managed to manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus, successfully stalling any real action on everything from DDT and Big Tobacco to acid rain and—you guessed it—global warming.

Flashback to two years ago: a group of us volunteers over at Skeptical Science decided to take Naomi Oreskes’ work and give it a serious upgrade. Working under John Cook, we dove into the abstracts of roughly 12,000 scientific papers pulled from a massive database, hunting specifically for anything tagged "global warming" or "global climate change." We were looking at everything published over a twenty-one-year stretch, spanning from 1991 to 2011.

To double-check our numbers, we actually reached out via email to over 8,500 scientists who authored these papers—at least the ones whose contact info we could hunt down. We basically asked them straight up to rate their own work: do they back the idea of man-made global warming, or are they calling BS?

It’s basically the same story either way: scientific consensus shows that like 97% of the experts putting out research say climate change is definitely caused by us. This stuff hit the papers back in May 2013 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The math doesn't lie, even if people try to twist it. Check this out.

One of the other guys behind that study actually dropped some extra details about what's coming next in the research:

Back in July, the Competitive Enterprise Institute—which, let's be real, is basically just a mouthpiece for ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers—tried to play hero. They filed a formal complaint against NASA, demanding they "fix" a statement on their site regarding the scientific consensus. You know, that part where it says 97 percent or more of active climate scientists agree that humans are driving the warming trends we've seen over the last century? Yeah, they hated that. Instead of dealing with actual facts, CEI dug up some debunked blog posts from five years ago to try and claim the math was wrong. It's honestly pathetic.

Funny enough, this July marks the millionth download of a 2013 paper I co-authored with the crew over at Skeptical Science regarding the scientific consensus on human-driven climate change. When our team combed through the abstracts, we hit a 97.1 percent consensus that humans are the main culprits behind recent global warming—and when the authors rated themselves, it climbed to 97.2 percent.

Back in 2016, our crew joined forces with the authors of five other major studies to drop a paper on what I call the "consensus on consensus." Basically, we proved that somewhere between 90 and 100 percent of climate scientists—and all their peer-reviewed data—agree that humans are the ones driving this whole global warming mess.

That whole "consensus gap" thing—where people think experts are divided when they actually aren't—is basically just the result of a massive, non-stop misinformation blitz. The idea that "there is no consensus" is one of those classic climate myths, and if you follow the money, it all traces back to a memo written around 2001 by that same Republican Party strategist, Frank Luntz.

He’s out here talking about kids and this whole "climate change generation gap" thing.

People are finally waking up to the scientific consensus and actually backing climate action, mostly because the kids are driving it. Sure, a million downloads doesn't mean much when you're fighting against the billions of dollars big oil spends on shady misinformation campaigns, but it's a start. For Millennials and Gen-Z, record-breaking heatwaves and insane weather aren't "news"—it's just life. We're seeing this massive generational gap, and as these kids grow up, Americans are finally starting to face the facts and realize we need actual, heavy-duty climate policy.

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/mill...-faces-denial/

Sure, we could take this logic even further: everyone in charge is lying—NASA, the IPCC, the whole lot of them. They’re all rigging the numbers, or maybe they’re just being played themselves. Basically, every climatologist on the planet has been part of one massive conspiracy for the last 30 years... IMO, that belongs on the "Conspiracy Theories" sub than in "Politics."

No matter what side you're on regarding this issue, weaponizing a girl who's autistic, has Asperger, and is so overwhelmed by anxiety she can barely make it through a school day—it's just wrong. It's not like she's "skipping class to protest."

And what makes you some kind of expert qualified to hand out diagnoses? 🤔 You think she's "unable" to go to school, yet somehow she manages to give speeches to the U.S. Congress, at G7 summits, and at the UN? Just because she "has Asperger"? What, are you reading her facial expressions? Are you a psychiatrist or some kind of psychic?

People with Asperger have been everywhere according to various theories—obviously, nobody knows for sure since real doctors won't diagnose someone without meeting them face-to-face—but look at Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, or Nikola Tesla (who was a total brat when he was young, insisting he could do things his professors said were impossible). Then there's Robert James Fischer, the chess legend, who really made an impression on me back in my early teens. He was a nightmare by age 13, totally disrespectful to his elders, absolutely crushing people at chess, and by 15, he was one of the nine best players on the planet. But yeah, he actually did deal with serious mental health struggles later in life, which led to him suddenly walking away from the game—kind of like Tesla, though Einstein was a different story altogether. Still, as long as people play chess, they'll remember him with awe.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Nikola-Tes...erger-Syndrome

https://psmag.com/social-justice/a...-fischer-25959

Being that arrogant—acting like because the OP is "grown up," unlike her, they have the right to label a sixteen-year-old—yeah, that sounds like hate speech to me.

lonetrucker4 said:This is hate speech—and not just toward Greta Thunberg, but toward all the young people taking part in these protests, or any other social movement that dares to criticize the world they’re inheriting. Because apparently, "brats" shouldn't stick their noses in when "previous generations" created this perfectly wonderful, flawless, and absolutely pristine world we live in today.

Hate?! Hate towards who? Do you even have a clue what hate actually is or what that word signifies? According to you, calling someone a brat constitutes hate. If you call a kid a brat, in your twisted logic, you're filled with hatred for them. Give me a break, man, this is getting ridiculous. Seriously, calling someone a brat is "hate"... what's next? Are we going to declare the word "kid" as hate speech too?

lonetrucker4 said:So because they're 16, they don't have the right to vote, let alone criticize anything? At what age does it stop? Can I, at 62, look at someone who's maybe 40 and say, "Hey brat, you have no right to critique what my generation built"? 🤔 Or should Joža Manolić tell everyone under 90 that they're just brats? 🤣

Sure you can. And no sane person is going to label you a hater just for thinking some kids are brats. You're allowed to have that opinion. That doesn't mean you hate them, and it certainly isn't "hate speech." Honestly, the root of the problem here is that you fundamentally don't understand what hate speech or hatred even means.

Basically, anything that doesn't align with your specific worldview or your personal opinions is something you immediately slap the "hate" label on.

If someone disagrees with you on a topic—boom—it's hate speech. That's how your brain works.

And you showed this perfectly in that thread dedicated to you—the one that's been sitting there unanswered for days—where you labeled a single IsTINUTU claim made by a user, which they backed up with evidence from an American website, as hate speech (against an entire nation!) simply because the truth didn't fit your narrative.

Here's the thread— http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1165463

So, first off, go learn what hate actually is. Expressing an opinion that contradicts yours DOES NOT mean it's hate. Something being true, even if it clashes with everything you believe, doesn't make it hateful.

@John: I just told you how I see things, since it might actually matter, even if I'm not some moderator over on the Politics board and I wasn't the one who handed out that card protest. Not looking for a fight here.

lonetrucker4 said:@John: I told you how I see things because it might be relevant, even though I'm not a moderator on Politics and I wasn't the one who issued that card. I'm not going to get into an argument here.

So where are the answers to my questions? You act like an expert on these issues—which are directly tied to chaos physics—and then turn around and call the expert's words nothing but nonsense. Isn't that hate speech?

It doesn't surprise me at all that people jump on posts just to find any excuse to troll (which moderators have been treating as personal bias for years), but where are the actual facts?

Climatologists agree? Well, I also agree that we have global warming, but would it exist without human influence? Yes, it would. So, human activity is accelerating global warming, not starting it. Why is that never clearly explained to the public? Because propaganda is being spread that serves certain interests. Period. We have a situation where electric cars are viewed as eco-friendly, but nobody wants to look at how batteries are manufactured or how much those battery plants pollute. That kind of hypocrisy wears me out.

And excuse me, but someone who is 16 certainly can't possess enough knowledge to be considered a factor in a topic that relies on models and long-term data measurement. Theory is one thing; practice is quite another. Wisdom and quality of knowledge come with age. To me, it’s perfectly logical that a 60-year-old will be wiser than a 40-year-old.

Here, I'm trying to Google your name to see your references. All I find is that you are an environmentalist, not a climatologist, and that you have political leanings.

I'll say it again: I only care about the facts and answers to real questions. Since you present yourself as an expert, you should surely be able to answer them. 🙂

@Noah Fowler3Look, like I said, this isn't the spot to keep dragging out a debate that already has its own thread, nor is it the place for whatever lecture you think you need to give.

Look, I'm no expert—never claimed to be. Just someone who knows enough to not be totally clueless. And I'm definitely not an environmentalist.

Can someone please just delete my username? I was the one who actually kicked off this whole thread about Greta Thunberg
I'm totally done with this—I don't want anything to do with it anymore.

lonetrucker4 said:So, if you’re 16, you don't have the right to vote, let alone the right to criticize anything. At what age does that rule stop applying? Can I, at 62, look someone who's 40 in the eye and say, "Listen, kid, you don't get to critique the mess my generation made"? 🤔 Joža Manolić claims anyone under 90 is just a kid. 🤣

Neurological development typically wraps up around age 25, specifically regarding those prefrontal cortex functions like analysis, strategic thinking, abstract reasoning, and emotional regulation. Personally, I’d say the window between 25 and 30 is when true maturity actually kicks in. That upper limit isn't set in stone, though. Cognitive decline isn't nearly as predictable as developmental milestones, so you could easily find an 80-year-old in better mental shape than someone in their 70s.

When it comes to technical discussions, years on the job aren't the only thing that matters—expertise is key. A sixteen-year-old still stuck in high school doesn't just lack the cognitive tools needed for a serious debate; they usually don't have the facts to back it up either.

Then there’s the whole conversation around her mental health and specific diagnoses—things like developmental delays (by their account), anxiety, depression, and Asperger. It’s a slippery slope, though. Depending on how you look at it, those traits could be seen as a weakness or an advantage. It all depends on your perspective.

If anyone actually wants to have a serious discussion, I’d suggest bringing in someone who actually works in the field professionally—someone with a PhD, proper academic credentials, and a solid history of relevant research under their belt. Age-wise, we’re probably looking at someone in the 30 to 60 range.

Dragging a kid with Asperger to the UN isn't exactly a scientific debate; it's just activist performance art.
I'm not saying it can't be useful, but personally, I find it pretty distasteful—even when it's coming from a platform I generally agree with. I have a real issue with the dumbing down of any subject, but unfortunately, populism is what drives politics these days.

Anyway, that’s a whole different debate and doesn't really matter for the question being asked here.

lonetrucker4 said:@Noah Fowler3: Like I said, this isn't the place to continue a discussion that already has its own thread, nor is it the place for the lessons you seem to need.

I'm no expert. I never claimed to be; just someone who knows enough to be dangerous. I'm not an environmentalist either.

Look, colleague, this is quite the pivot. 🍿

I suppose this kind of "pushback" was expected... Honestly, finding answers to my questions via Google is tough, almost impossible. 😁
Luckily, I had a professor for this subject who was actually brilliant. They gave us real insight into both sides of the argument, because back then—just like now—there wasn't a total consensus on exactly how much humans contribute to global warming.

So, thanks for the mention, but I don't need a lecture. My college education covered what I need to know about this topic—I get it. I have a decent grasp of chaos physics, too. Enough to know when someone is trying to sell me a load of nonsense. Your refusal to answer my questions says a lot about you (yeah, I'm leaning toward calling it propaganda and political maneuvering here).

And yes, you did claim to be an expert. When you mentioned meeting Paar back in the 80s and telling him he was wrong, you positioned yourself above him. Paar is the expert, so anyone acting superior to him is clearly an expert too.

You aren't an environmentalist, yet the only work I can find online is related to ecology? Interesting...

A quick search also shows you're a journalist and a politician with extreme leftist views. If you hadn't presented yourself as a scientist on this forum, I wouldn't have even suspected it.

Also, thanks for the invite to the other thread, but I have no interest in debating people who refuse to listen to opposing views and resort to name-calling, especially when moderators step in to issue card protests for hate speech.

Thanks for reading,
Noah Fowler3

lonetrucker4 said:@John, I just wanted to share how I see things, since it might actually be relevant. I’m not a moderator over on the Politics sub, and I wasn't the one who handed out that card protest, so I'm not looking to get into a heated debate here.

I guess I won't be getting into any arguments. But look, you've gone straight into a polemic, and honestly, it feels like you're just aiming to insult me at this point.

I didn't even realize people actually discussed this stuff here, but since we're already on the subject, I guess I should ask if I could just share what that actual post looked like—the one they banned me for:

MrsGahan said:Maybe we should take a moment to actually analyze Greta Thunberg's entire speech, rather than just pulling random clips out of context..[/COLOR]

Maybe we should take a moment to actually analyze Greta Thunberg herself—and, more importantly, the people who seem to be recklessly manipulating her. It’s hard not to notice how they leverage her frustrations, her fears, and even her neurodivergence just to push their own agendas. It feels a bit calculated, if you ask me.
So, wait... are they actually bullying her? I mean, is she really being targeted like this? It seems that way, I guess. Maybe it's just how things work now.

I guess I should probably say something here... just sitting here thinking about how everything seems to be shifting, though maybe it's just me. It's hard to tell sometimes, isn't it? Everything feels a bit heavy lately. Anyway, I suppose I'll just leave this here.
(quoting Greta Thunberg's speech)
It’s all wrong. I honestly shouldn't even be here; I should probably be back in school on the other side of the ocean, but instead, you all just keep turning to us young people, looking to us to provide some kind of hope. How do you even have the nerve? You’ve basically stolen my childhood and my dreams, replacing them with nothing but empty words.

Timothy Nelson5
Who exactly stole anything from her? I mean, really... what did she actually lose?
I mean, look at Greta Thunberg. She was born into this world of absolute abundance—a world built by the sheer grit and tireless work of the generations that came before her. It’s all there, isn't it? The infrastructure, the stability... it was all carved out by people who actually put in the effort. So, I guess you have to wonder... who does this kid think she is, coming in here and lecturing everyone else about how to live? It feels a bit much, doesn't it?

Besides, those aren't even her words.
I mean, I guess it’s highly unlikely she actually penned those words herself; it feels more like they were written by her handlers. It just seems that way to me.

I don't know, maybe I'm just getting old, but I feel like I've been staring at this screen for hours and nothing actually changes. Everything feels a bit... static? I guess I'm just tired. It’s hard to tell if it's the caffeine or just the general state of things lately. Anyway, I'll probably be back here later. Or maybe not. Who knows.
So, it isn't exactly that Greta is claiming she had some tragic childhood or anything like that. It’s more that she’s arguing that once she grew up and actually looked at the reality of things—all those empty ecological promises from around the globe, the Kyoto protocols, and all those other agreements meant for... well, you know—she realized she’d been cheated. I guess her point is that she feels robbed of both her future and her childhood because of it. Maybe.

T:
I have a daughter who's right about Greta Thunberg's age.
My daughter is actually heading to one of the most demanding high schools in the country this year—based on her entrance exam scores, anyway. But even she wouldn't be foolish enough to think that listening to world leaders lecture us about things they clearly don't understand is a good idea. I guess some people just enjoy hearing themselves talk.


Someone on Reddit quoting Greta Thunberg:
For over thirty years, the science has been crystal clear. I honestly don't know how anyone can still look the other way and come in here claiming they're doing enough when there aren't any real solutions in sight. You say you hear us, and you say you grasp how urgent this all is, but... I don't know. No matter how much anger or sadness I feel, I just can't bring myself to believe it. Because if you truly understand what's happening and you still choose to do nothing, then you'd have to be malicious. And I just refuse to believe that's the case.

T:
For over thirty years now, it seems like scientists just can't reach a consensus on any single significant aspect of this whole topic. That claim about 97% of scientists being in agreement? I guess that’s just one of those blatant lies pushed by a radical activist, John Cook—who, if I recall correctly, is a comic book illustrator by trade. In reality, it feels like less than 0.2% of scientific papers actually identify CO2 as the primary, driving factor behind climate shifts. Most of these researchers aren't even denying that changes are happening or that there's an issue to address, but the vast majority seem to be against fueling this massive wave of hysteria. Maybe that's just how it is.

MrsGahan
Has anyone here—specifically those folks who keep recycling that one single sentence of hers like a broken record—actually sat down and watched the full four minutes and fifteen seconds of her speech?

T:
I've been watching, and I see this one deeply unfortunate girl... she really needs some help, you know? For her own good, I suppose.
I’d suggest everyone watch the clip, but maybe mute the audio and just focus on the expressions on her face.

Regardless of where people stand on this whole issue, manipulating a girl who is autistic—who has Asperger—to the point where she is paralyzed by anxiety and essentially unable to attend school (so it’s not really a case of 'skipping class as a protest')—well, that’s just wrong.

And what kind of message does that actually send to our kids?
Just stay home from school?
Skip out whenever you aren't satisfied?

That’s just not the way to do things!

John Wayne meant well when he asked the question (thanks, John), but since the quote from my reply only included my own words and omitted the parts of her post I was actually responding to... well, maybe he didn't expect the entire conversation to be wiped clean.

Consequently, my post ends up looking like some sort of rant against Greta Thunberg rather than a genuine discussion with another user.

Of course, it seems like the moderators are too embarrassed to leave posts like that up; it's probably hard to explain why they get banned when they haven't actually broken any site rules, or why something like this is even being labeled as hate speech here.
After all, wasn't Nina Raspudić the one who wrote and published that article titled "Gretenism..." where he was even harsher regarding all this chaos surrounding Greta and her orchestrated performances?

I haven't noticed anyone filing a criminal complaint for hate speech against Nina R.
If someone has, please let me know.

Similarly, I doubt neither moderator Oštrić nor anyone else would dare repeat the insults leveled at me—essentially accusing me of being a bad, malicious, and regressive parent simply because I care about my children's well-being, unlike Greta Thunberg's parents who involved their minor child in a reckless political campaign—in public or at a PTA meeting. Or perhaps they would, though they'd likely face a quick lawsuit for doing so.

Timothy Nelson5 said:That Greta Thunberg was born into a world of pure abundance...

Not even close.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Who is this brat to be lecturing anyone about anything?

Considering Greta Thunberg probably knows way more than you do, I’d say she’s more than qualified to give out lectures.
Just imagine—a sixteen-year-old girl is actually sharper and better informed than you are... honestly, she's probably eating you alive.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Besides, didn't Nina Raspudić write and publish an article titled something about "Gretenism"?

If Nina comes over here and starts flame wars or posting nonsense, he’ll get what's coming to him.

Anyway, you already got your answer. You're just trolling and picking fights because you can't handle the fact that some young woman actually knows more than you. Boo hoo. Go cry about it at home and maybe when you've calmed down, you can come back.

bluemason3 said:Dragging a kid with developmental challenges in front of the UN is just activist theater—it’s not actual scientific debate.

This is total fiction and a textbook ad hominem attack.👎 Greta Thunberg isn't "mentally challenged"—if anything, she's sharper and more capable than the people throwing stones at her out of pure jealousy. Plenty of high-functioning, brilliant people have Asperger—it doesn't touch your cognitive abilities at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome; it mostly just affects social cues and emotional processing. People tossing around diagnoses of depression or other issues to question Greta's mental capacity just proves they don't understand mental health—and more importantly, it shows they lack any real arguments against her activism, so they resort to low blows because they can't compete on level ground.👎 Some folks clearly can't even wrap their heads around her message due to their own mental limitations, but that's a whole different conversation.😬 It's pathetic—honestly, it doesn't get much lower than this from supposedly "adults" and "normal" people.🙄

I'm not saying it's not useful, but personally, I find it distasteful—even coming from a platform I generally agree with. I'm not a fan of dumbing down any issue, but populism runs politics...

Oh, is that news?😲 When the populism of "genius" Donald Trump or various other world leaders—or even our local small-town sheriffs and cowgirls—starts spreading globally, suddenly there's no problem with populism running politics, right?😒 Ah, how wise and sophisticated!🙄🥱

Peter Reyes33 said:Since Greta Thunberg clearly knows way more than you do—honestly—I’d say she should definitely be the one setting the rules here.
Just imagine—a 16-year-old girl actually has more brains and knowledge than you do. I bet she’s eating you alive.

Of course everyone who can't see her talent is tearing her apart—they're just absolutely dying of jealousy over what she can actually do.😁👍

When Nina shows up here and starts flaming everyone with her usual nonsense—well, she'll get exactly what's coming to her.

Oh yeah, that "know-it-all" is just pure genius—truly.👎 Main thing is—he honestly thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. Such a classic.🙄👎

Anyway, you got your answer. You were just trolling and flame warring because... well, obviously. You just can't handle the fact that some young woman actually knows more than you do—it's tough.Oh, please. Go have a good cry at home first—once you've actually calmed down, then maybe you can come back.

Sure thing!👍 The core issue with most of those attacking her—is that they simply can't hide it. Pure, unadulterated jealousy directed at a young, smart, and capable woman—classic.!😂

Missed the final paragraph before, so here's my take on it:

Timothy Nelson5 said:Anyway, didn't Nina Raspudić write and publish that piece with "Gretenism..." right in the title? He went even harder against all that noise surrounding Greta Thunberg and her whole orchestrated performance routine.

Didn't realize someone actually filed a hate speech complaint against Nina R.

A criminal complaint means way stricter criteria because the penalties are much heavier. If Nina Raspudić tried that stuff in a History PDF, he wouldn't last long, and I won't even guess about his chances in a Politics PDF.

Neither Oštrić nor anyone else would dare repeat those insults—which were thrown at me as a parent (basically implying I'm a bad, backwards parent just because I care about my kids' well-being, unlike Greta Thunberg's parents who dragged their minor kid into a reckless political campaign)—anywhere in public or at a PTA meeting. Or maybe they would, but they'd get slapped with a lawsuit fast enough.

Well, I did voice these views—the ones you think are offensive (while you feel entitled to insult a girl you don't even know)—in public. In fact, I did it under my actual name, so feel free to check with a lawyer about suing me. IMO, there wouldn't be a prayer.

It’s fine that the moderation on the Greta Thunberg thread is abysmal, but is blatant trolling of one side actually permitted here too?🤔

Look, I’m no doctor, but isn't implying that someone is being criticized simply because they are incompetent or jealous of a child’s attempt to provoke an emotional reaction just a textbook definition of trolling?

I don't know, it feels like I either don't understand the rules, or they only apply to certain people while others get a free pass. Looking at the Greta Thunberg discussion, that certainly seems to be the case...

Do the rules apply to everyone equally, or just select individuals? Are they always enforced? Can a moderator issue a card protest without any actual provocation, especially when no one responds to my question regarding the matter?

Any clarification would be appreciated...

placidorca16 said:This is nothing but pure fiction and a blatant ad hominem attack against her.👎 It’s not that Greta Thunberg is "mentally challenged"—she’s actually far sharper and more capable than most of the people throwing stones at her. Honestly, it just looks like pure jealousy to me.A lot of highly intelligent people have Asperger, and it doesn't actually impact their cognitive abilities.Asperger syndrome is a neurodevelopmental condition that primarily affects how people interact with others and process information. It’s often characterized by intense, focused interests and a tendency toward repetitive behaviors, which can make social cues feel like a foreign language. While it presents certain challenges in navigating typical social settings, many individuals with Asperger find they have unique strengths, such as incredible attention to detail and deep expertise in specific subjects. It isn't about a lack of interest in people, but rather a different way of experiencing the world.It doesn't change her intellect; it only affects how she communicates and processes emotions. All these diagnoses of depression and other labels people throw at Greta Thunberg to undermine her mental capacity just prove they have zero clue how mental illness actually works. They don't have any legitimate arguments to counter her activism, so they resort to low blows because they simply can't compete on the facts.👎 Some people clearly just can't wrap their heads around her messages due to their own mental limitations, but honestly, that's a whole different conversation.😬 Pathetic. Honestly, I don't think it gets any lower than this when it comes to so-called "adults" and "normal" people.🙄

And that’s something new?😲 It’s funny how people react. When "genius" populists like Donald Trump or other world leaders start gaining traction globally, nobody bats an eye. But when we see that same brand of populism being wielded by our local sheriffs and cowgirls here at home, suddenly everyone starts acting like it’s a massive problem. It’s all about who’s driving the bus, I guess.😒 Well, that’s pretty wise and hard to argue with.🙄🥱

Being neurodivergent doesn't mean being stupid. You're putting words in my mouth.

I know more people with Asperger than anyone else; honestly, I’ve spent more than half my life surrounded by folks on the spectrum.My mother, my cousin, a professor from college, and a few acquaintances.Honestly, I don't need anyone explaining their pros and cons to me.

I can be incredibly successful at whatever I focus on, but my metacognition—that big-picture thinking, grasping complex situations, navigating social dynamics, and handling stress—is where I tend to struggle.It's often made much harder by comorbidities, like epilepsy.They’re basically useless in any other context. Great for highly specialized roles, maybe, but terrible leaders. Personally, I’d hire someone with Asperger to be a programmer, but I wouldn't dream of putting them in charge of the department. They all tend to be obsessively focused and incredibly exclusive—sometimes even aggressive fanatics about whatever they fixate on. They can't see past the tip of their own noses.

Cognitive ability isn't just about grinding through specific tasks. Metacognition counts as a cognitive ability, too.

I’ve got a depression diagnosis myself, so I really don't need anyone explaining whether it interferes with things or not. 😉

I think I read somewhere—maybe it was her, maybe her family, or someone close to her—that she’s basically stunted in her development because of everything she's been through. They said she even looks younger than she actually is. Or something like that, anyway. I can't quite recall the exact wording.

Even the brightest 16-year-old can be pretty clueless. Like I said before, the neurological development of the key brain regions responsible for these kinds of questions doesn't actually wrap up until around age 25. It’s just a straightforward biological fact, really—nothing to debate.

It’s pretty much indefensible. The only reason a kid with that many issues would try to lecture experienced adults is by pulling at emotional heartstrings. It isn't about informing anyone or having a serious intellectual debate—that's just not happening.

bluemason3 said:Just because someone struggles mentally doesn't mean they're stupid. You're putting words in my mouth.

I know plenty of people with Asperger, and others on the spectrum too... way more than I can count, actually. I spent more than half my life around them, so I really don't need anyone explaining their pros and cons to me.

They can be hyper-successful at whatever they focus on, sure, but things like metacognition, breadth of thought, grasping complex situations, social dynamics, etc.—that stuff is usually a mess. They're great for highly specialized roles, maybe, but lousy leaders. If I were hiring, I’d bring an Asperger on board as a programmer, but never as the head of a department. They all tend to be intensely obsessive, almost fanatical, about their specific fixations.

Cognitive ability isn't just about knocking out certain tasks. Metacognition is a cognitive ability, too.

And for what it's worth, I have a diagnosis of depression myself. 😉

On top of that, I think I read somewhere—maybe it was her or her family or whoever—saying she was essentially developmentally delayed because of all the issues she faced, and that she even looks younger than she is, or something along those lines. I don't recall the exact wording.

👍

Even the most advanced sixteen-year-old is still dim-witted in some ways. Like I said, the neurological development of the key parts of the brain regarding these matters doesn't wrap up until around age 25.

I'd have to correct you there, just a little bit.
"Stupid" is such a broad term. In this context, it would be more accurate to say "immature."
When you call someone a "kid," that's exactly what you mean—they're immature.

Peter Reyes33 said:Since Greta Thunberg knows way more than you do, I’d say she definitely needs to watch her step.
Just imagine—a 16-year-old girl actually knows more than you do. She’s probably eating you alive right now.

I'll just play dumb and not ask why this hasn't been flagged as a card protest. 🤦

Come on, explain why Greta thinks she knows way more than some guy on a forum? 🍿

lonetrucker4 said:If Nina R. were on the History PDF, he wouldn't last long. As for the Politics PDF, I'm not going to guess.

Are you trying to say that you believe you have the right to strip others of their constitutional rights whenever you feel like it? This is exactly how you communicate before you even attempt to call me rude.

ruggedfox6 said:Look, I’m no doctor, but isn't criticizing someone just because you’re feeling inadequate or jealous a bit much? It feels like a childish attempt to bait people into an emotional reaction. Basically, it's just trolling.

The bigger issue is that people who claim to be smart actually stoop to that level just to say something to someone like that.
These are the kinds of people who would act like dictators, trying to force their opinions on everyone else. It’s just not mature, it's not smart, and it certainly isn't educated.

There’s probably no moderator because nobody is actually reporting any posts. They'd have to read through way too much stuff just to figure out who needs a ban. Besides, moderators have lives, for crying out loud...