Here’s the thing; if you remove the word “useless” from that statement, I have no issue with it (other than it being factually inaccurate that Greta’s parents are “rich”).
Yes, it would be the definition of privilege to be well off enough that you can spend your life focused on activism. And that’s OK.
Having privilege is not a moral judgment. You’re not a bad person because of it. It’s just a fact of life. What’s important is to understand your privileges. If she was going around moralizing at other people for not spending all their life on activism even though they’ve got bills to pay and kids to feed, that would be a shitty thing to do. But as the reply in the OP says, recognizing your privileges and using them to help those who are not fortunate in the same ways is exactly the behaviour we want to see more of, from everyone. That can be as simple as being the guy in the meeting who says “Hold on, I really want to hear what Sandra has to say” because you know she’s being talked over. It can be a white person filming the cop as they arrest a black kid, because you know that your skin colour affords you a level of safety in that situation. You use the advantages you’re given to help others.
I saved this comment that @JoMiran@lemmy.ml made (different post, same community) when I scrolled by it a few weeks ago.
This is a Lemmy gold worthy comment (imo), but also want to make sure they get credit:
Have made a few searches on Greta Thunberg and her parents and they are not “rich”. They are better off than average in Sweden but calling them rich is a bit of a stretch.
Is this the classic misdirection where anyone who isn’t poor is classified as rich so you can incite them against policies that would target “the rich”, when they’re actually two or three orders of magnitude away from being (negatively) affected by those policies?
Helping other people -sometimes by putting yourself in active danger- is so… selfish and privileged???
Seriously, I’d love to hear this person’s idea of what someone with generational wealth should be doing to be a good person.
making a lotta MONEY! probably.
That’s “generating value for the economy” to you, peasant.
It’s trickling down any minute now!!!
Don’t make me come down there and CREATE fewer JOBS!! Because I’m going to do that on my own tomorrow anyway
This person probably thinks nobody deserves a life the slightest less miserable as theirs
“Why doesn’t she get a real rich parents job like Senior Financial Analytics Executive?”
They’re pretty obviously a Zionist troll, paid or not, and as such they will never argue in good faith nor have basic moral standards.
No, you got to understand:
The best thing to do is launch several startups that will either fail or succeed by sucking all the life of your employees and if you can make your customers lives miserable also you hit the jackpot.
You see, unprivileged people are too busy working for a living to try to change the system that destroys the world while keeping most people too busy and exhausted to change the system. This is of course, the fault of the people that tries to change the system, apparently.
what someone with generational wealth should be doing to be a good person.
Give their butler a generous holiday bonus after they drive you home insufferably drunk on new years
Ugh you let your butler drive you places? That’s not how you butle properly. Mine uses a rickshaw.
Peasant. Mine uses his arms to carry me everywhere in a human throne.
They’re probably self-deprecating to the point where they see her trying to help and feel inadequate for not being able to do the same. They understand that she has the resources to do so and they don’t, but those feelings of inadequacy still don’t go away, so they just want her to be gone so that they don’t have to feel that way anymore.
I see that line of thinking all the time in people who have internalized the American propaganda of “work hard and you’ll find success.” They can’t process the fact that they’re working as hard as they can without achieving success, so they rebel against the idea of success itself regardless of how its used, because they see that as easier to topple than the broken system that causes the issue in the first place.
They’re in such distress that they no longer care about whether we’re moving forward or backward as a society, so long as they feel a bit better right now. It’s exactly where the elite want us to be.
And if she got a “real” job people would call her a nepo baby. There is no winning with these insane people. Not to mention she doesn’t even come from a rich family.
This. They hate her because they hate her. Not because she doesn’t work.
Criticising someone for trying to make the world a better place makes you the most pathetic loser on the face of the planet.
I peeped their Twitter account and they’re absolutely a trash human being.
She might have gotten bombed and tried to end a genocide and this user wants her to work…
This is one I rip on people for choosing to be a drone instead of someone that helps
Zionists hate her because she supports justice for Palestinians rather than staying silent
Using the phrase “useless activism” says everything we need to know about the poster.
she could have easily become a liberal grifter. instead she puts her life at risk to help others. she’s probably one of the best people on the face of the earth.
Yeah, this. Every day we see people succumbing to the lure of monetizing having tons of attention on them, and a distinct brand.
Also, her parents aren’t that rich:
Using Sweden’s publicly available income tax data, which is generally regarded as being very trustworthy, makes it abundantly evident that the Thunbergs are by no means affluent elites. They represent, at most, what may be called well-off professionals who live simply in a nice part of Stockholm.
According to Peter Thiel, she’s the antichrist.
Stop, you’ve already sold me on how cool she is.
Can you name some examples of well known liberal grifters?
John Fetterman and Krysten Sinema come to mind. Most self described “liberal” politicians, really.
Depending on the year Bill Maher would quality.
Hadn’t thought of him in a while. Excellent example, thanks.
I am from the internet. I’m here to help.
Bill Maher is LARPing as a liberal, he is conservative as fuck
I’ve been aware of him since the '90s. He’s been anti-vax long before that moved from a liberal to a Republican position during covid. He’s had a lot of other liberal positions that have moved toward conservatism over the years.
It’s the reason I specified that the year is going to be important because he has changed. I think part of the issue is that he’s often just dumb more than funny and that makes him seem more conservative than he is and has been in the past.
But he’s always had a grifter vibe.
He believes in universal healthcare and progressive social programs, he just says most dont actually get to the people. He doesnt believe in geyser spending like the far left of today, where lefties of today want infinite programs like a shotgun, instead of a far more progressive tax structure that can meet peoples real needs more directly; for things like paying for the growing cost of shelter thats being ignored.
anyone who gets paid to tell rich people at Davos to “Stop it, please”
Anyone currently being paid by CHORUS should qualify
she could have easily become a liberal grifter.
What do you mean by liberal grifter?
- 1a: inclined to be open to ideas and ways of behaving that are not conventional or traditional : broad-minded, tolerant
- 1b: of, relating to, or favoring a philosophy of liberalism (see liberalism sense 1), especially political liberalism (see liberalism sense 2a) and often also social liberalism
- 1c: : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism (see liberalism sense 2a) especially : such a philosophy calling for the government to play a crucial role in relieving social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class) and in protecting the environment, and often including the aims of social liberalism
- 2a: relating to economic liberalism (see liberalism sense 2d) a political philosophy based on belief in progress and stressing the essential goodness of the human race, freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority, and protection and promotion of political and civil liberties
- 3a: marked by generosity : openhanded
- 3b: ample, plentiful
no idea what your point is. that’s just a random word definition
twat noun ˈtwät British usually ˈtwat pluraltwats
Simple Definition A Simple Definition is available from our Learner’s Dictionary to help you understand the meaning faster. 1 slang, vulgar + offensive : a woman’s sexual organs 2 British : a stupid or annoying person ‘… no, you’re not sorry, you’re just a twat.’ —Mark Billingham
Pluraltwats is my new band name.
I dunno, I like “usual twat”. Or maybe that’ll be pluraltwats’ first album?
So you got nothing, lol.
not going to deny, I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to say, so technically, I can’t answer that. but that’s like winning a debate by only barking and making other debaters give up on dealing with you.
The Iran shit brought the trolls out, interesting.
deleted by creator
He means “says what center-left and further progressives want to hear, but then is all talk and no action, no substance”
John Fetterman, Kirsten Sinema, Deja Fox type shit
In order words, Geta could have just been all talk but the fucking IDF roughed her up and she came back for more
Then why didn’t he say that? What you are saying makes complete sense.
Also, there are a lot of trolls trying to mix up and confuse the word liberal. I wanted to know what they exactly meant. No answer, just “blah, blah, insult, blah, blah, blah.”
Then why didn’t he say that?
Bc your original comment in its entirety made very little sense. Why would you ask what a liberal grifter is then feel like it’s necessary to explain what a liberal is? My guess is that you were just being condescending and now realize you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about.
And not being able to understand your condescending nonsense doesn’t make someone a troll. That sounds more like a victim complex and projection cocktail to me.
A lot of people get “liberal” mixed up with “neoliberal,” and it would be kinda funny if it wasn’t so annoying.
Like, yeah, I get it, “neoliberal” contains the word “liberal.” A third grader could figure that out. But “neoliberalism” is a misnomer; there’s nothing liberal about it at all. In fact, it’s a conservative economic ideology.
Liberalism itself sprung from the humanist tradition and has a long philosophical tradition, but people who have never read classic liberal philosophy think they know what it is.
Of course, it developed in the west, so people associate it with imperialist/colonialist projects. But western philosophy also gave us concepts like human rights, secularism, and the scientific method. Are those things colonialist projects, too?
And yeah, there are some corporate sellout neoliberals on the Democrat side of the aisle. That doesn’t make “liberalism” about corporatism, it makes those corporate Dems not really liberal.
Also, lots of republicans are/were neoliberals. Reagan most famously, but also basically every self-declared “fiscal conservative.” “Fiscal responsibility” is code for “stinginess,” the opposite of “liberality.”
“Liberal,” on the other hand, in the sense of “generous,” means “giving freely.” It also comes from the same root as “liberty.”
So yeah, a lot of people attack “liberalism” and “liberals” because they get it confused with “neoliberalism.” Try to explain the difference and you’ll get some tankie accusing you of being an ignorant westerner, or even a fascist, not even grasping the irony that 1), they’re revealing their own ignorance about the subject, and 2), liberalism and fascism are mutually opposed to each other.
Of course, when conservatives use “liberal” as an insult, they’re talking about progressives, leftists, and anyone else they lump into that category.
I guess there’s no winning…
I guess there’s no winning…
That does seem to be the point. Confuse everyone so it loses all meaning.
I appreciate your request for clarification. Political liberalism, economic liberalism, libertarianism, and anti-authoritarianism are three rings on a Venn diagram.
Anyone more fluent in the issue, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Anti-authoritarianism is a component in a vast swath of political ideologies, and by itself is as meaningless as half of an address on an envelope in Hong Kong’s biggest post office.
Political liberalism typically bears features typically associated with the center-left; a lukewarm or even ambivalent stance on the nationalization of important strategic resources, and a penchant for permissive social and cultural dynamics (common sense civil rights like gay marriage and racial justice). Unfortunately, it lends itself to complacency and the paradox of tolerance, (or even outright allying with the political right for the sake of upholding the status quo) hence why leftists tend to barely tolerate or even dislike liberals on principle.
Economic liberalism is essentially laissez-faire Keynesian capitalism. Corporatism thrives under these conditions, leading to the exploitation of the working class by political bodies compromised by their economic power brokers. This in turn leads to corruption, the erosion of human rights, and other awful shit that should be avoided.
Social liberalism is (usually) an anti-authoritarian stance wherein democratic values are openly espoused and this attitude is applied to economic functions. This is the most common political orientation in continental Europe.
Libertarianism is a political orientation which combines an (ostensibly) anti-authoritarian leaning with fanatical devotion to capitalist economic models. This can range from corporatism to anarcho-capitalism. In their eyes, the free market is the greatest thing ever invented. All hail the almighty and benevolent coin. /s /s /s
The typical sentiment behind ‘liberal grifter’ is an individual who claims affinity to political liberalism co-opting disestablishmentarian sentiments for the sake of improving personal public image. They larp as an anarchist for the cameras, but really they’re just as invested in maintaining the status quo as any other economically-minded political liberal with capitalist leanings.
Some people spend half their life reposting propaganda on social media behind fake profiles for free. She at least owns up to her beliefs.
How can you take her seriously when she doesn’t even generate value for her capitalist overlords?
The only reason why her activism is useless, despite all the shit she puts herself in front of, is because everyone who can actually change anything is doing their best to pretend she doesn’t exist.
The only way to change that in the most drastic way possible is to turn activism into terrorism. Because activism is based on the idea of if you shout loud enough they’ll hear you. Doesn’t account for those that hear but do not care.
I really wish I could do what Greta does. I’m glad she does it for those of us who can’t.
Is activism contemporary monasticism?
IIRC, European medieval age societies used or required monasticism to carry out or legitimate deviant behaviour (in retrospect, some of it good, some of it bad) by saying that monks are doing the religious work for them.
I don’t think consider Thunbergs behaviour bad or not noteworthy, but I think our work isn’t exactly to heroise Thunberg as a person and be done with the topics.
I want to point out that is not what you said, but that’s what a lot of people read into this.
Punk and anarchism had this mantra of “kill your idols” and what is meant by that, is that we should turn our heroes back into actionable behaviours of people like you and me.
why is anyone using Xitter still?
lot more assholes than you hoped there’d be in this world.
Their desire for dopamine kicks from pointless thumbs up numbers from strangers online is more powerful than their desire to not support Nazis.
Imagine saying that to Batman 😂
That’s actually a thing!
IIRC, the idea is that many of the people Batman beats up are just desperate, and not evil, so instead using all that Bruce Wayne money on healthcare, rehabilitation, housing, and other services that benefit the poor would decrease the amount of crime way more than going around punching people ever would.
As far as I know Bruce has tons of charities and uses a lot of his money to help improve lifes. But gotham is cursed
And for anyone not familiar, Gotham is literally cursed. Like, dark wizards and demons cursed.
Too bad Bruce already does this with his fortunes and has set up so many charities, homeless centers, orphanages, work centers, … He even helped a couple of goons get a job at Wayne enterprise.
It is only because Gotham is literally cursed that it does not work.
So the people who say that really never read any of the comics.
I’m usually absolutely not interested in any superhero and their lore but how is Gotham cursed?
The specifics depend on the writer, but there’s some supernatural force keeping Gotham from improving. The city may have been founded by demon worshipers, Arkham Alylum might have been founded by a serial killer, and there might be chemicals from underground Lazarus Pits leaking into the water supply. It all depends on the continuity and who tells the story. Long story short, Gotham is the kind of fucked up that all the money in the world isn’t going to fix.
I don’t read comics either… but yeah Gotham being “cursed” to be crime ridden no matter what does sound like bit of a dog whistle lol.
Cursed as in occult origins, not cursed as in bad luck
More like, “We know that these are serious issues, and we appreciate that our readers and writers both are intelligent, dedicated, and meticulous. However, we still need a setting where we can tell a story, and a good story is driven by conflict.”
Speaking as a writer, it’s a case where Status Quo Is God, not an overt endorsement of violence against the working class. In fact, Absolute Batman is literally just a dude working construction. He also snaps Nazi arms like twigs.
Just the like the US is just cursed with gun violence and there’s nothing that can be done about it
I can’t begin to tell you how much of a relief it would be to learn that an occult curse is the real reason standard of living in the U.S. has been on such a steep decline since Reagan (and the Heritage Foundation) took office.
What if Reagan was the curse?
Nah, America is cursed because it was built on an ancient Indian burial ground, and they only moved the grave markers while leaving the bodies there.
Bruce spends billions on healthcare, charities, homeless programs, food banks, and endless and countless other things to help
That’s literally the entire point of the Bruce Wayne persona. He’s a rich playboy that gives away endless money for good deeds.
Batman is a fictional character made specifically to glorify rich people. Even the most ‘nice’ or ‘generous’ millionaires+ are leagues and leagues beneath Batman.
Which by the way is not to say we cannot enjoy Batman or any ither fiction. Just pointing out broader context.
This is actually why they had the idea to reinvent the character without wealth. The comics “Absolute Batman” are really good. Bruce grew up as a construction worker. The Joker is a billionaire.
I was a fan of the 60s Batman (no, I’m not that old, I was just introduced to the classics at a young age). Adam West and Burt Ward were my Batman and Robin.
He was a millionaire in the 60s.
Here’s the really funny part. In the 1960s Batman Movie, Julie Newmar plays the Catwoman (she’s one of my favorite Catwomen because of this role, but Eartha Kitt will always hold a special place in my heart.) In this edition, Catwoman decides to go undercover as a journalist for the Moscow Bugle. Her legend for the mission is that she is a Russian Communist, during the height of the USSR’s economic and military threat level against the US.
Bruce Wayne falls madly in love with her. Catwoman, being a consummate espionage artist, snaps the trap and kidnaps Bruce Wayne. Bruce, as Batman, later finds out this woman who stole his heart was one of his sworn enemies. Literally as he’s chasing her, trying to find Miss Kitka, because he thinks she hurt her. Only for her mask to fall off, to find out that he got, well… catfished. Adam West deserved an Academy Award for those tears of shock and grief.
The subtext at the time was that the US was starting to try to repair its bad relationship with the USSR, and push forward with nuclear disarmament. It was a reflection of the betrayal of the first failed nuclear negotiations that were hanging so heavily in the public mind.
Batman has always been complex regarding the role of the rich in politics. Really, it depends entirely on who’s writing the story how that context is approached and how Bruce uses it. It isn’t consistent because the writers have changed as much as the world has. I’m glad to see Absolute Batman subverting the traditional Batman mythos by making him a working class hero and putting the Joker in front of the bank vault this time.
This is the wildest take I’ve seen all day
