Why right-wing men are so pissed off by the likes of Greta and AOC

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:36 pm

First topic message reminder :

The TL/DR is that it all ends up symbolizing a threat to their balls. But it's worth a look:

While these examples might feel like mere coincidence to some, the idea that white men would lead the attacks on Greta Thunberg is consistent with a growing body of research linking gender reactionaries to climate-denialism—some of the research coming from Thunberg’s own country. Researchers at Sweden’s Chalmers University of Technology, which recently launched the world’s first academic research center to study climate denialism, have for years been examining a link between climate deniers and the anti-feminist far-right.

In 2014, Jonas Anshelm and Martin Hultman of Chalmers published a paper analyzing the language of a focus group of climate skeptics. The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.”

The connection has to do with a sense of group identity under threat, Hultman told me—an identity they perceive to be under threat from all sides. Besieged, as they see it, both by developing gender equality—Hultman pointed specifically to the shock some men felt at the #MeToo movement—and now climate activism’s challenge to their way of life, male reactionaries motivated by right-wing nationalism, anti-feminism, and climate denialism increasingly overlap, the three reactions feeding off of one another.

Climate science, for skeptics, becomes feminized—or viewed as “oppositional to assumed entitlements of masculine primacy.”
“There is a package of values and behaviors connected to a form of masculinity that I call ‘industrial breadwinner masculinity.’ They see the world as separated between humans and nature. They believe humans are obliged to use nature and its resources to make products out of them. And they have a risk perception that nature will tolerate all types of waste. It’s a risk perception that doesn’t think of nature as vulnerable and as something that is possible to be destroyed. For them, economic growth is more important than the environment” Hultman told Deutsche Welle last year.

The corollary to this is that climate science, for skeptics, becomes feminized—or viewed as “oppositional to assumed entitlements of masculine primacy,” Hultman and fellow researcher Paul Pulé wrote in another paper.

https://newrepublic.com/article/154879/misogyny-climate-deniers?fbclid=IwAR2lyhMw3npMJi2luwJTvmQqa1IKESOmRFJZEFbRVTzyV1BOQhHI66wwWXs

by Maddog Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:19 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

It wouldn't apply to energy per se, but it would apply to any machines and vehicles that became obsolete or banned.

Of course. It would have been better if we'd started trying to fix this back in the 80s and 90s, when we wouldn't have had to ban any machinery and could simply have allowed it to become obsolete.

There has to be technological advances to create the obsolescence.

It's getting there. But until we have electric planes, enjoy your train and boat rides back to the UK.

by Maddog Sun Dec 22, 2019 4:21 pm

eddie wrote:Okay, this is my take on all of this.

I have one question, firstly.

WHAT has her age got to do with her opinion? Are we to believe that we only know our own minds when we hit the age of 20? 33? 45?

At what age would she have to be, that we would find her views as “acceptable”?

Someone tell me, please.

Why are minors given special protections under the law?

Should kids be allowed to work in coal mines?

by Original Quill Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:45 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I just find this gob-smackingly unbelievable. Who says shit like this about the majority of grown-up politicians, let alone teen girls?

It reminds me of when right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh called 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. Seriously???

Is it OK to disagree with her and think she is being used and hidden behind?

It's OK to be scared, but not to build up your defenses by making shit up.

by eddie Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:05 pm

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:Okay, this is my take on all of this.

I have one question, firstly.

WHAT has her age got to do with her opinion? Are we to believe that we only know our own minds when we hit the age of 20? 33? 45?

At what age would she have to be, that we would find her views as “acceptable”?

Someone tell me, please.

Why are minors given special protections under the law?

Should kids be allowed to work in coal mines?

That answer didn’t answer any of the questions that I asked though, did it?

And coal mines are a different topic to opinions, wouldn’t you say? Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:07 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

It wouldn't apply to energy per se, but it would apply to any machines and vehicles that became obsolete or banned.

Of course. It would have been better if we'd started trying to fix this back in the 80s and 90s, when we wouldn't have had to ban any machinery and could simply have allowed it to become obsolete.

There has to be technological advances to create the obsolescence.

It's getting there. But until we have electric planes, enjoy your train and boat rides back to the UK.

That sounds like a wonderful time, actually! Sure, it would take a long time, but I'd enjoy the hell out of it, and I might not even have to take off my shoes at the train depot or the port.

by Maddog Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:43 pm

eddie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Why are minors given special protections under the law?

Should kids be allowed to work in coal mines?

That answer didn’t answer any of the questions that I asked though, did it?

And coal mines are a different topic to opinions, wouldn’t you say?

It addresses why we treat 16 year olds differently than adults, regardless of what they think.

by Original Quill Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:49 pm

eddie wrote:Okay, this is my take on all of this.

I have one question, firstly.

WHAT has her age got to do with her opinion? Are we to believe that we only know our own minds when we hit the age of 20? 33? 45?

At what age would she have to be, that we would find her views as “acceptable”?

Someone tell me, please.

I have to agree. There is no evidence (1) that age has anything to do with it, (2) that anyone is influencing her, or (3) that a teenager can't be just as advance-thinking and forthcoming as any older parson.

As far as precocious is concerned, the term is a compliment. It means:

dictionary.cambridge.org/.../english/precocious
precocious adjective. uk /prɪˈkəʊ.ʃəs/ us /prəˈkoʊ.ʃəs/. › (especially of children) showing mental development or achievement much earlier than usual...

Two of my daughters attended precocious child programs during their summers in high school, one at Harvard and one at Arizona...one is a Harvard grad and a lawyer today, the other is a physician saving lives. If Greta is precocious, ask where I can send the check. She deserves it.

by Tommy Monk Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

As you can see from graph above... most of the last 10000 years has been warmer/as warm as today... while CO2 levels were slightly lower than today...

We've been in a 600 year long cooler period (known as the little ice age) compared to the last 10,000 years... now we are out of it and returning to what is the long term normal temps that we have had during most of the last 10,000 years...

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

As you can see from graph above... most of the last 10000 years has been warmer/as warm as today... while CO2 levels were slightly lower than today...

We've been in a 600 year long cooler period (known as the little ice age) compared to the last 10,000 years... now we are out of it and returning to what is the long term normal temps that we have had during most of the last 10,000 years...

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

by 'Wolfie Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

As you can see from graph above... most of the last 10000 years has been warmer/as warm as today... while CO2 levels were slightly lower than today...

We've been in a 600 year long cooler period (known as the little ice age) compared to the last 10,000 years... now we are out of it and returning to what is the long term normal temps that we have had during most of the last 10,000 years...

I call "bullshit" on all your fucking polluting--corporation lies, Tommy...

Those charts are lies;
Your claims are lies;
You are a fucking lying toady shill.

That "600 year mini ice age" is a myth -- disproven many times on here over the past couple of years, yet you keep on repeating your outright lies..

Take your fake lying propaganda and idiotic claims and "shove it up where the sun don't shine", Tommy.

P.S. And have a happy freezing & flooded Christmas and a Smoggy New Year, you pathetic troll..

by nicko Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:17 pm

Isn't Wolfie a nice Man, bet he doesn't get many Xmas Cards !

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:28 pm

It's not bullshit at all... its the data from the GISP2 ice core study in Greenland...!

Maybe you could post up the 'real' data, if you think the above is 'false' in any way...???

Come on...!!!???

Let's see what you've got...!!!???

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:35 pm

Just for fleakeeper... who refuses to believe the truth...

https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

Enjoy!

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Just for fleakeeper... who refuses to believe the truth...

https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

Enjoy!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

by eddie Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Okay, this is my take on all of this.

I have one question, firstly.

WHAT has her age got to do with her opinion? Are we to believe that we only know our own minds when we hit the age of 20? 33? 45?

At what age would she have to be, that we would find her views as “acceptable”?

Someone tell me, please.

I have to agree. There is no evidence (1) that age has anything to do with it, (2) that anyone is influencing her, or (3) that a teenager can't be just as advance-thinking and forthcoming as any older parson.

As far as precocious is concerned, the term is a compliment. It means:

dictionary.cambridge.org/.../english/precocious
precocious adjective. uk /prɪˈkəʊ.ʃəs/ us /prəˈkoʊ.ʃəs/. › (especially of children) showing mental development or achievement much earlier than usual...

Two of my daughters attended precocious child programs during their summers in high school, one at Harvard and one at Arizona...one is a Harvard grad and a lawyer today, the other is a physician saving lives. If Greta is precocious, ask where I can send the check. She deserves it.

Thank you for answering my questions. And well done to your “precocious” daughters, my son must also be precocious seeing as he got a scholarship to Cambridge.

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:48 pm

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Why are minors given special protections under the law?

Should kids be allowed to work in coal mines?

That answer didn’t answer any of the questions that I asked though, did it?

And coal mines are a different topic to opinions, wouldn’t you say?

It addresses why we treat 16 year olds differently than adults, regardless of what they think.

Are 16-year-olds incapable of learning about scientific findings?

by Tommy Monk Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:02 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Just for fleakeeper... who refuses to believe the truth...

https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

Enjoy!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

The main argument in that... is that the graph I showed has its dates wrong over the last 150 years...

But... as we know that it is now a little bit warmer than 150 years ago... but only by about estimated 0.7 C... so graph still stands!!!

by eddie Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:15 pm

The thread is about a girl...not a debate about climate change.

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Just for fleakeeper... who refuses to believe the truth...

https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

Enjoy!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

The main argument in that... is that the graph I showed has its dates wrong over the last 150 years...

But... as we know that it is now a little bit warmer than 150 years ago... but only by about estimated 0.7 C... so graph still stands!!!

The main argument in that is that the graph only represents Greenland, not the entire world.

by Ben Reilly Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:27 pm

And yes, this is about why GT pisses off right-wing men, not about climate change.

by 'Wolfie Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Just for fleakeeper... who refuses to believe the truth...

https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

Enjoy!

And you think that is a reputable reference, Tommy...

No wonder you're such a willing recipient for the Koch bros./Monckton-led anti-science propaganda pieces flooding the Internet these days..

No proper scientific publication would refer to a cooling period in Northern Europe as any kind of "ice age" when it was simply no such thing :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

by Maddog Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:25 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

It addresses why we treat 16 year olds differently than adults, regardless of what they think.

Are 16-year-olds incapable of learning about scientific findings?

Of course not.

In theory they could do open heart surgery too. Ask Dr Doogie Howser.

by eddie Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:05 pm

So Maddog, at what age do you consider a human being capable of knowing their own mind?

by Original Quill Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:12 pm

eddie wrote:my son must also be precocious seeing as he got a scholarship to Cambridge.

Congratulations. Well done. Smile

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:29 am

Employees at a Canadian oil company made up these stickers:

Why right-wing men are so pissed off by the likes of Greta and AOC - Page 2 Screenshot_20200229-121319_Gallery

Why right-wing men are so pissed off by the likes of Greta and AOC - Page 2 Screenshot_20200229-121319_Gallery

She's still a minor, by the way.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:48 pm

ahh...so the dichotomy of the lefty

she's 16 yes? but NOT capable of having an informed opinion on sex and its various rituals....
BUT
she is capable of having a Valid and fully informed opinion on climate change....

unbelievable.....

also no matter how much she may "know" (and like all teenage brats she doubtless knows everything) she has no life experience and certainly has no concept of unintended consequences or the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

and I note she still uses all tech, which under HER ideas would simple vanish since it would not be viable....

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:33 pm

16 is the legal age of consent... Thought she was 17 now anyway...

by Original Quill Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:55 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:ahh...so the dichotomy of the lefty

she's 16 yes? but NOT capable of having an informed opinion on sex and its various rituals....
BUT
she is capable of having a Valid and fully informed opinion on climate change....

unbelievable.....

also no matter how much she may "know" (and like all teenage brats she doubtless knows everything) she has no life experience and certainly has no concept of unintended consequences or the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

and I note she still uses all tech, which under HER ideas would simple vanish since it would not be viable....

The law deals with generalities. Most minors cannot consent to sex, as a matter of a law, based on the generality that most cannot appreciate and evaluate the consequences.

But opinions are individual and free, and encouraged at any age. They may well have consequences, but only when filtered through many, many other minds, of all ages. Greta is offering up her opinions, and urging a certain course of action. She is not a teenager offering up a pregnancy. So the two are entirely different.

In the final analysis, Vic, your message sounds like the old saw: Children should be seen and not heard. That sort of message teaches the kids to not think, which indeed increases the chance that they will make the decisions that will lead to pregnancy.

by Maddog Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:05 pm

Victorismyhero wrote:ahh...so the dichotomy of the lefty

she's 16 yes? but NOT capable of having an informed opinion on sex and its various rituals....
BUT
she is capable of having a Valid and fully informed opinion on climate change....

unbelievable.....

also no matter how much she may "know" (and like all teenage brats she doubtless knows everything) she has no life experience and certainly has no concept of unintended consequences or the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

and I note she still uses all tech, which under HER ideas would simple vanish since it would not be viable....

That's the beauty of adults using a child to promote their propaganda. Wink

by nicko Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:27 pm

by Guest Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:43 pm

I wonder whether those who carry the mantra of Children should be seen and not heard, also preach theat children should be obscene and not heard?

I have heard that saying before, and it related to adultd dominating and bullying kids.

Kids have a brain and a voice. If old goats dont like what they have to say, simple , dont listen to them

Millions do.

And ploiticians are becoming wise enough to listen as well, as those millions have a vote in the ballot box.

by nicko Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:06 pm

Some "old Goats" know a lot more than ageist idiots like you !

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:16 pm

Maddog wrote:
Victorismyhero wrote:ahh...so the dichotomy of the lefty

she's 16 yes? but NOT capable of having an informed opinion on sex and its various rituals....
BUT
she is capable of having a Valid and fully informed opinion on climate change....

unbelievable.....

also no matter how much she may "know" (and like all teenage brats she doubtless knows everything) she has no life experience and certainly has no concept of unintended consequences or the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

and I note she still uses all tech, which under HER ideas would simple vanish since it would not be viable....

That's the beauty of adults using a child to promote their propaganda.

Except that's not the truth when it comes to Greta.

by Ben Reilly Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:18 pm

16 isn't the legal age of consent the world over. And it would still be horrible if she was 25 or 100.

by eddie Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:35 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Employees at a Canadian oil company made up these stickers:

She's still a minor, by the way.

Hmmm, she’s not hot enough to fuck to be fair....

(Joke people!) Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:47 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

That's the beauty of adults using a child to promote their propaganda.

Except that's not the truth when it comes to Greta.

OK. No adults are involved in promoting her agenda. They are staying out of it. My bad. Rolling Eyes

by JulesV Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:58 pm

Title: "Why right-wing men are so pissed off by the likes of Greta and AOC"

Dunno about 'RW men', but most businessmen, CEO's, traders & financiers are climate deniers. Cos the measures needed to reduce atmospheric pollutants and harmful gas emissions would cut into their profits …... and we can't be 'aving that, no siree !

by JulesV Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:08 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Employees at a Canadian oil company made up these stickers:

She's still a minor, by the way.

Bless her, Greta looks nothing like that hour glass figure.
She has the exact dimensions of a lollipop.
(And quite flat upfront too, no sign of puberty yet). It's like she doesn't eat !!
Nice lass tho.
Endearingly earnest.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:36 am

JulesV wrote:Title: "Why right-wing men are so pissed off by the likes of Greta and AOC"

Dunno about 'RW men', but most businessmen, CEO's, traders & financiers are climate deniers. Cos the measures needed to reduce atmospheric pollutants and harmful gas emissions would cut into their profits …... and we can't be 'aving that, no siree !

Do you remember when the cigarette industry took the denial course? Won't work for Big Oil, either.

by JulesV Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:00 am

Original Quill wrote:
JulesV wrote:Title: "Why right-wing men are so pissed off by the likes of Greta and AOC"

Dunno about 'RW men', but most businessmen, CEO's, traders & financiers are climate deniers. Cos the measures needed to reduce atmospheric pollutants and harmful gas emissions would cut into their profits …... and we can't be 'aving that, no siree !

Do you remember when the cigarette industry took the denial course? Won't work for Big Oil, either.

Hey Q !

Some of the world leaders who were rubbishing the verdict of climate experts are the very ones now praising the scientists who are researching corona and tracking its mutations and working round the clock to create an effective vaccine.

Seems these leaders are a bit selective about when they choose to show respect for scientists.

(Yes climatology is a very different field to virology but the basic principles of science - observation, accuracy, etc - are the same).

by Maddog Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:08 am

JulesV wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Employees at a Canadian oil company made up these stickers:

She's still a minor, by the way.

Bless her, Greta looks nothing like that hour glass figure.
She has the exact dimensions of a lollipop.
(And quite flat upfront too, no sign of puberty yet). It's like she doesn't eat !!
Nice lass tho.
Endearingly earnest.

The oil workers that made this sticker didn't draw tje female. They just put her name on already made art and made stickers for their hard hats and such.

by Original Quill Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:36 am

JulesV wrote:Seems these leaders are a bit selective about when they choose to show respect for scientists.

Yes, it's an old game. In politics, all you have to do is open a defense--"he denies it"--and that reserves a slot for denial. It doesn't matter if it's true, as long as the question remains open.

In law, they invented the Rules of Evidence to dispose of such schemes. They have this thing called the Oath. And perjury to back it up. But in politics Republicans can say all kinds of sheit and it's OK.

by 'Wolfie Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:49 am

eddie wrote:So Maddog, at what age do you consider a human being capable of knowing their own mind?

Five years older than however old his eldest daughter is...

by Guest Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:09 pm

eddie wrote:So Maddog, at what age do you consider a human being capable of knowing their own mind?

Have a read Eddie

https://brainconnection.brainhq.com/2013/03/20/decision-making-is-still-a-work-in-progress-for-teenagers/

by Maddog Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:37 pm

eddie wrote:So Maddog, at what age do you consider a human being capable of knowing their own mind?

What does knowing their own mind even mean?

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:53 pm

JulesV wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Do you remember when the cigarette industry took the denial course? Won't work for Big Oil, either.

Hey Q !

Some of the world leaders who were rubbishing the verdict of climate experts are the very ones now praising the scientists who are researching corona and tracking its mutations and working round the clock to create an effective vaccine.

Seems these leaders are a bit selective about when they choose to show respect for scientists.

(Yes climatology is a very different field to virology but the basic principles of science - observation, accuracy, etc - are the same).

Totally different.

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:34 am

Margaret Thatcher was the first high profile 'world leader' to warn of the impending dangers from climate change/"global warming", increasing pollution and the likes...

Way back in 1983; with followup addresses to the UN General Assembly, in 1985 and 1989..

https://youtu.be/VnAzoDtwCBg

That should bump Maggie down a couple of rungs on Tommy's approval ratings ?

by Sponsored content