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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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."
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 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.
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.
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?
I mean, yeah. That is a privilege. She is privileged to be able to be an activist.
People acting like "privilege" is some awful phrase is why MAGA types go out of their way to deny their privilege.
Doing what greta has done was never an option for me. But things I've done were never options for other people. And that doesn't make either of us bad people. Just lucky.
If you have the privilege to do whatever you want, hopefully "whatever you want" is positive and not punching down
People acting like “privilege” is some awful phrase is why MAGA types go out of their way to deny their privilege.
That's because maga types are deeply, fundamentally, stupid. They don't think, they feel. When you say to one "You're privileged by being white so you don't get bothered as much by the police" they feel bad, and that's all. That's part of why they can hold contradictory positions without any apparent discomfort. The words are contradictory but the feelings are consistent.
When you say to one “You’re privileged by being white so you don’t get bothered as much by the police” they feel bad
no, they feel good. that is exactly how world is supposed to work in their heads. for a short time in history they knew it was not strategic to say that out loud, but that short moment has passed now.
MAGA is based on American evangelicalism. To this form of Christian, being the perpetual victim is crucial to their belief. Acknowledging privilege makes it hard for them to see themselves as a cosmic victim, so they reject the idea.
I like the way you think and I wish I could share it, but I've met some real shitty activists. The protest outside of planned parenthood type, and honestly useless is about the kindest thing I can say about them.
I agree that there are bad kinds of activism too, but its still not useful to call even them "useless" as this just dismisses their still very real effects.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Christ I’m so disgusted with people scapegoating her with all of their worst-faith notions about political protest and activism. First of all she’s the most benign target of all time to go attack maliciously. Secondly, in their zeal to shit on her, people shit on the entire idea of civil protest and standing up against government and corporations for what you believe in. Even Trump dipshits should have an ounce of respect for that, no matter who you are.
She's supposed to be on a Yacht, not a protest flotilla.
And the wealthy all consider her activism a con-game because to them, empathy is just another resource that's exclusive to their class. The note of pity is genuine because they think she's wasting her life.
This is what some people don't get. Being privileged isn't inherently bad. It's not a choice you made, it's the circumstances of your birth, upbringing, and culture. The problems start when you deny your privilege and how it has effected your life, when you argue that your privilege is actually proof that you're better, when you think you should be given more privilege as a result, when you expect others to compete against what is a given for you, etc.
You know what isn't a problem with privilege? Using that privilege to project the voices of the un-privileged. Speaking truth to power. Using your famous name to boost a worthy cause. Putting your self in harms way so that the same abuse that would have happened to someone else without media focus can't be ignored. Standing up against villains, setting an example, and calling those in authority to action.
Anyone trying to reduce what this girl has done to rich white girl privilege needs to go brush your teeth. Your breath smells like bullshit.
You know what isn't a problem with privilege? Using that privilege to project the voices of the un-privileged. Speaking truth to power.
Damn right. And why more cis white men need to show up at Pride. And Women's Marches. And BLM. A real man isn't one who punches down, it's one who extends an open hand.
they wont, even the ones in non-conservatives areas have tendancy towards conservative behaviors towards POC, especially in places that are gentrifying, most likely they are transplants from more white only states, conservative areas. those cish white men that have grown up with minorities had no issues with them, but those grown up with all white communities/ mostly bring tolerance to a point when they move to more progressive areas, and seen them freak out or clutch thier pearls when evena minority even approaches them.
A real man isn't one who punches down, it's one who extends an open hand.
A bit off topic, but I get annoyed when I see statements like this because it always comes from the same type of people who whine about the patriarchy and get mad when someone talks about being a "proper" woman.
You can't be against sexism when you yourself are sexist. Masculinity isn't defined by your subjective beliefs. Stop trying to shame men for who they are because of your misguided personal standard. There's no such thing as a "real" man because all men are real.
Self-proclained "real men" define themselves by their masculinity. I'm merely trying to change their definition of masculinity, because I think that's easier than changing them directly.
You're no different than the alpha male grifters as you harbor the same flawed mentality. Masculinity is not a set of expectations, it's literally just the behavior of men. Any behavior exhibited by any man is masculine by definition. This idea of a "real" man is manipulative bullshit to try to shame men for having emotions and individuality.
its being snobby and arrogant, and elitist, almost every rich person or silver spooned person has done, hence thats why they fall with conservatives alot. even the ones that do something like charity, theres always a ulterior motive, like with gates, other than GRETA.,
Sweeping judgements of people based on the circumstances and traits of their birth without regard for individual traits and acts is the definition of stereotyping. And negativity based on those generalities is the definition of prejudice.
Even if you assume that most people that are born rich are the same and, therefore, bad, why wouldn't you assume based on her actions that she's "one of the good ones" as the bigots say when presented with a living counter argument to their hateful assumptions?
I disagree mainly for the Elon reasons. We want everyone's voices in government and excluding anyone's is a recipe for disaster (yes, I'm one of those crazies that even thinks prisoners should have the right to vote it's wild right). I think it's just that ASD voices are among those conspicuously missing from government and that's something worth working to change.
People often equate justice with revenge. They want people to suffer for offences, real or perceived, that they've committed. The American so-called criminal justice system is all about revenge. It's about locking people up and making them suffer awful living conditions as punishment instead of trying to better them.
Speaking as someone with ASD with features typically associated with the former name (we decided as a group that we didn't like having our mental status named after the Nazi scumbag that tortured us to come up with our diagnosis), I really think that this isn't necessarily a perfectly good idea.
I appreciate where this is coming from, and the sentiment it represents. I wish I was as badass as Greta Thunberg, but I'm not. A democracy needs every voice. Especially the sane ones.
I mean it wasn't meant seriously, but I can understand why you might take it that way.
(we decided as a group that we didn’t like having our mental status named after the Nazi scumbag that tortured us to come up with our diagnosis)
I'll digress from the post a bit here... I can appreciate what you're saying, but this is a wild distortion of what occurred to reclassify Asperger's Syndrome as ASDL1. This is not what happened or why it was done, and there is no credible evidence that Hans Asperger himself was a Nazi or that he tortured anyone.
Again, I appreciate where you are coming from. This story, although many people believe it, is not at all correct. But yes, his work to understand and determine the nuances of autism was used by Nazis to determine who would be killed and who wouldn't. He did cooperate with them, but whether he doomed a group of people or saved another one in that situation is a matter of perspective.
And I personally don't think we should change the names of the things that might be rooted in darker history, regardless of the actual events, well-understood or not. Not simply for the sake of it (again, that's not why it was done in this case). That begs us to forget things that need to not be forgotten. Maybe part of why we find ourselvse repeationg our mistakes as humans.
Speaking, of course, as an autistic person myself.
Yea, I dont understand the hate for her. Corporations are destroying our planet and putting upper tier lifeforms on the path to extinction ... just for some shareholder value.
It was a manufactured smear campaign by conservatives and their handlers to make her look out of touch and priveleged. And unfortunately for the world, it worked fabulously.
im guessing she makes people look really bad that the fact that she is rich and isnt scheming or screwing people over, acting all snobby, like with his FAUX charity image GATES? even soros dint get that rich by being nice, who took advantages of things that went his way.
I remember when libertarians told everyone that if billionaires got to keep more of their money they would better society doing the things government can't.
Her parents weren't even billionaires and look what they did. Now these same libertarians are all butthurt because someone is trying to better society.
You mean she's not just going to lux grocery stores and getting pedicures midday and talking about being a housing provider because she owns 100 apartments?
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.
In the not-too-distant-future, we'll likely have a problem that robots and AI will be able to do any job a human can do. If there is any justice in the world, and I have no reason to think there is, then everybody will basically be financially secure and able to do whatever they want to do. Because the alternative is an almost unimaginable amount of suffering. Almost exactly the same as SkyNet, but with a human in charge.
Anyways, if we reach that point, then the question will be... what's so good about working for a living in the first place, when you're not doing anything that a robot can't do better? Literally the only thing humans will be useful for at that point is comforting other humans. Everything else will be leisure or self-education.
Whatever you're imagining, move it 100 years into the future and imagine it again. The only rational difference between two informed opinions on this is the timeline, and perhaps whether humanity will destroy itself before we get there. If you disagree and think that, no matter how much time or progress happens, this will never happen, then you're simply frighteningly wrong.
if i disagree with your 100 year forecast then i am patently wrong? well, that is really lame rhetorical attempt to claim victory that is unverifiable.
current llms are at the edge of their capabilities, they consumed all data in the world to train on and they are nowhere close to being our robot overlords (thankfully).
there will be plenty real world applications where they will be useful, no doubt about that, but they will not take "all our jobs". at the same time current llms are not artifical intelligence, that is just marketing buzzword, we have no idea how to even start approaching true GAI.
That 100 years is a recursive algorithm. If the 100 years later wasn't enough then you imagine another 100 years. Of course, I personally think it will be less than 100 years.
current llms are at the edge of their capabilities
You basically made my point by saying "current" LLMs. We didn't used to have this technology, and the future will have different technologies.
we have no idea how to even start approaching true GAI.
And 20 years ago, nobody had any idea how to even start approaching current LLMs. What we do know is that we're much closer to AGI today than we were 20 years ago.
20 years ago, people like you were saying that no AI would ever pass the modern Turing Test. Now we need tools and specialized knowledge to tell the difference.
Being close to an activist myself, they are outsiders by definition. I don't know of any society that recognizes and pays for the job they do. Their job is very important for large groups of people, requires extra hours, doesn't pay well if at all, yet it's dangerous as fuck. On the side of society, it's a loathed activity, even by the poor people, and it's something that doesn't easily allow people to scale socially. Worst of everything, activists rarely get recognition, and when they do, they are probably being tortured or dead.
Yeah, who the hell truly likes Greta Thurnberg? I certainly don't, but I respect her, no matter where she's coming from.
Both sentiments are perfectly valid. I think people are just expressing disappointment with wealth inequality in general, not building criticisms of either option.
i once voluntarily gave up all my possessions. i mean all of them. just put them out in public. took a while, had to do several different loads. stuff i loved. stuff id had since i was a kid. then went voluntarily homeless for about eight years. now im an activist. before that i went to usc (on scholarship). now im also a stock trader (retail, but sucking at it. lost a lot of money so far). am i good or bad???? i dont want to be badddddd i tried so hard to be good; what if im rich somehow so im bad???? fuck i fucked it all up somehow if so
I never understood why she receives so much attention. She doesn't have any notable achievements, expertise, or controversies. She's like the most lukewarm western activist there is. It truly is odd that out of all the activists out there, this is the one that receives the most hate and the most glaze.
because the “HOW DARE YOU” came from a child, a little girl, how dare SHE!? where is her subservience to her betters? and blah blah, super creepy objectification of a minor blah blah, you know, evil people stuff.
truth about greta, two of them: number one: gaza lied about the death toll and there was no genocide. they did this because they lost; they got all their soldiers blown up. it was all for nothing. saying it was all civilians worked a miracle cure for hamas. it made everyone hate israel and made hamas "win" the war, and, it served as a potent recruitment tool for new recruits. if they had said "our last soldiers all got blown up cause this war is unwinnable; now we need more" this wouldntve recruited. saying "gaaaahhhhh how can you just sit there as israel murders our babies, and our women, and our elderly, right in our streets, with no one doing anything about it???????" works much better. i dont think they realized the world response they would get; they had no idea what idiots people are. truth number two: we need people fighting for the environment like all hell, but she didnt go far enough the first time.
Hamas lied about the death tolls but not in the way you think. The truth is that Hamas only counted the people who they could confirm the identity of, their death toll is a massive underestimate. Basically all credible sources agree that the death toll is at least as high as Hamas says.
why does Israel admit to this? the Israelis have reported that the majority of the people they killed are civilians. why are there numbers showing a lie for Hamas?
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?"
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.
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 pretty obviously a Zionist troll, paid or not, and as such they will never argue in good faith nor have basic moral standards.
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.
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:
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
Stop, you've already sold me on how cool she is.
What do you mean by liberal grifter?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
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.
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
The biggest enemy of any leftist is a slightly different leftist
Damn leftists! They ruined leftism!!
Where do you get the idea that a Zionist is a leftist from?
Gretta?
The person in the screenshot complaining about Greta.
Because one else here is being negative about her. So I can’t see where else this imaginary leftist enemy is coming from.
Oh I don't know who she is. This sort of stuff is so common
I don’t either, but the emojis in their name give it away.
Bold of you to think I pay attention to Twitter users at that level
I'm guilty of this
Commenters on here keep telling me left and liberal are different things. Like, shut the fuck up please.
What a weird response to learning something new. It must be pretty unpleasant to be like that.
stfu please
No worries, I’m blocking you 😘
Newsflash: Different words have different meanings, more at 11...
...are they not? I'm confused.
I know right? And the downvotes dont make it any more clear
It would probably help if you expanded on your statement a bit.
Using the phrase "useless activism" says everything we need to know about the poster.
How can you take her seriously when she doesn't even generate value for her capitalist overlords?
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?
I mean, yeah. That is a privilege. She is privileged to be able to be an activist.
People acting like "privilege" is some awful phrase is why MAGA types go out of their way to deny their privilege.
Doing what greta has done was never an option for me. But things I've done were never options for other people. And that doesn't make either of us bad people. Just lucky.
If you have the privilege to do whatever you want, hopefully "whatever you want" is positive and not punching down
That's because maga types are deeply, fundamentally, stupid. They don't think, they feel. When you say to one "You're privileged by being white so you don't get bothered as much by the police" they feel bad, and that's all. That's part of why they can hold contradictory positions without any apparent discomfort. The words are contradictory but the feelings are consistent.
no, they feel good. that is exactly how world is supposed to work in their heads. for a short time in history they knew it was not strategic to say that out loud, but that short moment has passed now.
They feel bad towards you saying that.
MAGA is based on American evangelicalism. To this form of Christian, being the perpetual victim is crucial to their belief. Acknowledging privilege makes it hard for them to see themselves as a cosmic victim, so they reject the idea.
Calling any kind of activism "useless" is pretty evil in my opinion.
I like the way you think and I wish I could share it, but I've met some real shitty activists. The protest outside of planned parenthood type, and honestly useless is about the kindest thing I can say about them.
I agree that there are bad kinds of activism too, but its still not useful to call even them "useless" as this just dismisses their still very real effects.
Star of David and Monarchial Iran flag?
100% a Zionist troll, probably an IDF account.
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
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.
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 @[email protected] 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:
I mean, yes, she is privileged, but she's using that privilege to do some great stuff.
unlike some rich people like Musk, and THIEL who seems very obsessed with her.
Some people spend half their life reposting propaganda on social media behind fake profiles for free. She at least owns up to her beliefs.
Zionists hate her because she supports justice for Palestinians rather than staying silent
Christ I’m so disgusted with people scapegoating her with all of their worst-faith notions about political protest and activism. First of all she’s the most benign target of all time to go attack maliciously. Secondly, in their zeal to shit on her, people shit on the entire idea of civil protest and standing up against government and corporations for what you believe in. Even Trump dipshits should have an ounce of respect for that, no matter who you are.
She's supposed to be on a Yacht, not a protest flotilla.
And the wealthy all consider her activism a con-game because to them, empathy is just another resource that's exclusive to their class. The note of pity is genuine because they think she's wasting her life.
This is what some people don't get. Being privileged isn't inherently bad. It's not a choice you made, it's the circumstances of your birth, upbringing, and culture. The problems start when you deny your privilege and how it has effected your life, when you argue that your privilege is actually proof that you're better, when you think you should be given more privilege as a result, when you expect others to compete against what is a given for you, etc.
You know what isn't a problem with privilege? Using that privilege to project the voices of the un-privileged. Speaking truth to power. Using your famous name to boost a worthy cause. Putting your self in harms way so that the same abuse that would have happened to someone else without media focus can't be ignored. Standing up against villains, setting an example, and calling those in authority to action.
Anyone trying to reduce what this girl has done to rich white girl privilege needs to go brush your teeth. Your breath smells like bullshit.
Damn right. And why more cis white men need to show up at Pride. And Women's Marches. And BLM. A real man isn't one who punches down, it's one who extends an open hand.
they wont, even the ones in non-conservatives areas have tendancy towards conservative behaviors towards POC, especially in places that are gentrifying, most likely they are transplants from more white only states, conservative areas. those cish white men that have grown up with minorities had no issues with them, but those grown up with all white communities/ mostly bring tolerance to a point when they move to more progressive areas, and seen them freak out or clutch thier pearls when evena minority even approaches them.
A bit off topic, but I get annoyed when I see statements like this because it always comes from the same type of people who whine about the patriarchy and get mad when someone talks about being a "proper" woman.
You can't be against sexism when you yourself are sexist. Masculinity isn't defined by your subjective beliefs. Stop trying to shame men for who they are because of your misguided personal standard. There's no such thing as a "real" man because all men are real.
Self-proclained "real men" define themselves by their masculinity. I'm merely trying to change their definition of masculinity, because I think that's easier than changing them directly.
You're no different than the alpha male grifters as you harbor the same flawed mentality. Masculinity is not a set of expectations, it's literally just the behavior of men. Any behavior exhibited by any man is masculine by definition. This idea of a "real" man is manipulative bullshit to try to shame men for having emotions and individuality.
its being snobby and arrogant, and elitist, almost every rich person or silver spooned person has done, hence thats why they fall with conservatives alot. even the ones that do something like charity, theres always a ulterior motive, like with gates, other than GRETA.,
Sweeping judgements of people based on the circumstances and traits of their birth without regard for individual traits and acts is the definition of stereotyping. And negativity based on those generalities is the definition of prejudice.
Even if you assume that most people that are born rich are the same and, therefore, bad, why wouldn't you assume based on her actions that she's "one of the good ones" as the bigots say when presented with a living counter argument to their hateful assumptions?
We need to give the Aperger's type of autistic people the power to rule.
Maybe as some kind of council, because you can still end up with an Elon if you're not careful.
I disagree mainly for the Elon reasons. We want everyone's voices in government and excluding anyone's is a recipe for disaster (yes, I'm one of those crazies that even thinks prisoners should have the right to vote it's wild right). I think it's just that ASD voices are among those conspicuously missing from government and that's something worth working to change.
Prisoners are part of the state. They contribute and they consume. They should definetly have the right to vote.
Yet it's a common belief that they should lose the right to vote because crimes.
Common belief only in the US of A
Should depend on the kind of crime. Stealing a car doesn’t mean you’re not to be trusted to vote. Killing a public figure does, imo.
Yeah but perceived wrongs and actual wrongs aren't necessarily the same. I've met plenty of autistic folks who are far more Musk than Thunberg
People often equate justice with revenge. They want people to suffer for offences, real or perceived, that they've committed. The American so-called criminal justice system is all about revenge. It's about locking people up and making them suffer awful living conditions as punishment instead of trying to better them.
Speaking as someone with ASD with features typically associated with the former name (we decided as a group that we didn't like having our mental status named after the Nazi scumbag that tortured us to come up with our diagnosis), I really think that this isn't necessarily a perfectly good idea.
I appreciate where this is coming from, and the sentiment it represents. I wish I was as badass as Greta Thunberg, but I'm not. A democracy needs every voice. Especially the sane ones.
I mean it wasn't meant seriously, but I can understand why you might take it that way.
I'll digress from the post a bit here... I can appreciate what you're saying, but this is a wild distortion of what occurred to reclassify Asperger's Syndrome as ASDL1. This is not what happened or why it was done, and there is no credible evidence that Hans Asperger himself was a Nazi or that he tortured anyone.
Again, I appreciate where you are coming from. This story, although many people believe it, is not at all correct. But yes, his work to understand and determine the nuances of autism was used by Nazis to determine who would be killed and who wouldn't. He did cooperate with them, but whether he doomed a group of people or saved another one in that situation is a matter of perspective.
And I personally don't think we should change the names of the things that might be rooted in darker history, regardless of the actual events, well-understood or not. Not simply for the sake of it (again, that's not why it was done in this case). That begs us to forget things that need to not be forgotten. Maybe part of why we find ourselvse repeationg our mistakes as humans.
Speaking, of course, as an autistic person myself.
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
Greta could have sold out but instead she keeps running blockades to deliver aid to genocide victims
She was literally SA’d by the IDF and still fights. She is a hero.
why is anyone using Xitter still?
Their desire for dopamine kicks from pointless thumbs up numbers from strangers online is more powerful than their desire to not support Nazis.
lot more assholes than you hoped there'd be in this world.
That comment was pure jealousy
Yea, I dont understand the hate for her. Corporations are destroying our planet and putting upper tier lifeforms on the path to extinction ... just for some shareholder value.
It was a manufactured smear campaign by conservatives and their handlers to make her look out of touch and priveleged. And unfortunately for the world, it worked fabulously.
im guessing she makes people look really bad that the fact that she is rich and isnt scheming or screwing people over, acting all snobby, like with his FAUX charity image GATES? even soros dint get that rich by being nice, who took advantages of things that went his way.
Seems you do understand the hate for her.
What's the inverse of astroturfing?
I remember when libertarians told everyone that if billionaires got to keep more of their money they would better society doing the things government can't.
Her parents weren't even billionaires and look what they did. Now these same libertarians are all butthurt because someone is trying to better society.
Yeah, I mean look at Elon... wait, nvm.
He could have been that. Chose to do the opposite.
yeah, people not doing activism calling activism useless. sure, cope harder.
You mean she's not just going to lux grocery stores and getting pedicures midday and talking about being a housing provider because she owns 100 apartments?
Say the blue checkmark Tweeters…
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 agree, that's called noblesse oblige btw
Let's also keep to the facts about her access to wealth. There are a lot of rumors: https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/greta-thunberg-net-worth/
Little-known, fun fact, perhaps: Greta's paternal grandfather is the Swedish original voice of Bamse:
.
In the not-too-distant-future, we'll likely have a problem that robots and AI will be able to do any job a human can do. If there is any justice in the world, and I have no reason to think there is, then everybody will basically be financially secure and able to do whatever they want to do. Because the alternative is an almost unimaginable amount of suffering. Almost exactly the same as SkyNet, but with a human in charge.
Anyways, if we reach that point, then the question will be... what's so good about working for a living in the first place, when you're not doing anything that a robot can't do better? Literally the only thing humans will be useful for at that point is comforting other humans. Everything else will be leisure or self-education.
investors to this shitty industry would like you to believe it, but no, we won't. some jobs, probably. all of them, or even majority? no.
Whatever you're imagining, move it 100 years into the future and imagine it again. The only rational difference between two informed opinions on this is the timeline, and perhaps whether humanity will destroy itself before we get there. If you disagree and think that, no matter how much time or progress happens, this will never happen, then you're simply frighteningly wrong.
if i disagree with your 100 year forecast then i am patently wrong? well, that is really lame rhetorical attempt to claim victory that is unverifiable.
current llms are at the edge of their capabilities, they consumed all data in the world to train on and they are nowhere close to being our robot overlords (thankfully).
there will be plenty real world applications where they will be useful, no doubt about that, but they will not take "all our jobs". at the same time current llms are not artifical intelligence, that is just marketing buzzword, we have no idea how to even start approaching true GAI.
That 100 years is a recursive algorithm. If the 100 years later wasn't enough then you imagine another 100 years. Of course, I personally think it will be less than 100 years.
You basically made my point by saying "current" LLMs. We didn't used to have this technology, and the future will have different technologies.
And 20 years ago, nobody had any idea how to even start approaching current LLMs. What we do know is that we're much closer to AGI today than we were 20 years ago.
20 years ago, people like you were saying that no AI would ever pass the modern Turing Test. Now we need tools and specialized knowledge to tell the difference.
They can both be right?
The only failure would be not acknowledging that.
Berg is wrong because she calls it useless.
Bad take and his breathe stinks of leather.
Beats Musk, Bezos, Ellison, Trump etc. And all the other trust fundies
Good Lord, Would somebody please get her a sitcom?
So... Engels (even though he did have to work for a while)?
How dare you
Two very different takes on privilege—one sees responsibility, the other sees disconnect. Reality’s probably somewhere in between.
Who is disconnected?
Yet another religious nutjob.
Being close to an activist myself, they are outsiders by definition. I don't know of any society that recognizes and pays for the job they do. Their job is very important for large groups of people, requires extra hours, doesn't pay well if at all, yet it's dangerous as fuck. On the side of society, it's a loathed activity, even by the poor people, and it's something that doesn't easily allow people to scale socially. Worst of everything, activists rarely get recognition, and when they do, they are probably being tortured or dead.
Yeah, who the hell truly likes Greta Thurnberg? I certainly don't, but I respect her, no matter where she's coming from.
What's not to like?
I won't go there. Suit yourself.
I adore her, she gives a shit about more than just money and being a slave to corporations this is the natural state
Both sentiments are perfectly valid. I think people are just expressing disappointment with wealth inequality in general, not building criticisms of either option.
i once voluntarily gave up all my possessions. i mean all of them. just put them out in public. took a while, had to do several different loads. stuff i loved. stuff id had since i was a kid. then went voluntarily homeless for about eight years. now im an activist. before that i went to usc (on scholarship). now im also a stock trader (retail, but sucking at it. lost a lot of money so far). am i good or bad???? i dont want to be badddddd i tried so hard to be good; what if im rich somehow so im bad???? fuck i fucked it all up somehow if so
I never understood why she receives so much attention. She doesn't have any notable achievements, expertise, or controversies. She's like the most lukewarm western activist there is. It truly is odd that out of all the activists out there, this is the one that receives the most hate and the most glaze.
i think it’s because she is a young woman that shamed the elites on the global stage.
it’s because the republicans could not let it go
But there's so many others like her though, why her specifically? She also has a weird following of both haters and supporters in Europe
because the “HOW DARE YOU” came from a child, a little girl, how dare SHE!? where is her subservience to her betters? and blah blah, super creepy objectification of a minor blah blah, you know, evil people stuff.
truth about greta, two of them: number one: gaza lied about the death toll and there was no genocide. they did this because they lost; they got all their soldiers blown up. it was all for nothing. saying it was all civilians worked a miracle cure for hamas. it made everyone hate israel and made hamas "win" the war, and, it served as a potent recruitment tool for new recruits. if they had said "our last soldiers all got blown up cause this war is unwinnable; now we need more" this wouldntve recruited. saying "gaaaahhhhh how can you just sit there as israel murders our babies, and our women, and our elderly, right in our streets, with no one doing anything about it???????" works much better. i dont think they realized the world response they would get; they had no idea what idiots people are. truth number two: we need people fighting for the environment like all hell, but she didnt go far enough the first time.
Hamas lied about the death tolls but not in the way you think. The truth is that Hamas only counted the people who they could confirm the identity of, their death toll is a massive underestimate. Basically all credible sources agree that the death toll is at least as high as Hamas says.
Can you link your source about the death tolls?
i don't think their ass has a url
why does Israel admit to this? the Israelis have reported that the majority of the people they killed are civilians. why are there numbers showing a lie for Hamas?