Quote (ofthevoid @ 30 Sep 2019 02:55)
Probably just a function of her being Swedish and English being her second language. That’s w.e.
What I do find troubling is that she’s being propped up as the poster child of the climate change ‘do something’ movement.
Using an autistic child as a political prop is an extreme appeal to emotion. Honestly, huge turn off when it’s so blatantly obvious. If you have a good point or argument you don’t need to rely on low iq bait arguments such as appeal to emotion. Argue your opponents with intellectualism not try to sway the masses by using low tier emotional arguments.
who exactly is 'using' her, how exactly do 'they' do it, and to what end - who 'profits' from it and how, mr. tinfoil hat? just because you have been brainwashed by science denying, climate change appeasing propaganda, paid for by the fossil fuel industry, doesn't mean that everyone who has strong opinions on the topic is therefore a 'political prop'.
pathetically attacking a kid, somehow trying to discredit her by questioning her agency, will not make the overwhelming scientific consensus on man made climate change, which informs her actions, disappear. also, it's funny how defensive the far right always gets considering she not only criticises their inaction based on blatant denial / 'scepticism', but also the half-assed approaches by the part of 'the moderate left', who put climate change on their agenda, but still won't take adequate action.
the funny thing about this is that the very people buying into the whole 'political prop' narrative are themselves exactly what they accuse her of, classic projection really - and most of them are simply too stupid to realise it. that talking point is not some original thought you had, based on genuinely and critically looking at the science and her statements, but something that was fed to you by right wing outlets and politicians - all of them generously sponsored by big oil.
This post was edited by fender on Sep 30 2019 10:54am