They singled her out of the crowd to do this too. Interesting tactic on their part. Just makes for more awareness.
It’s almost as if the ones that singled her out have no knowledge of history and the concept of martyrdom.
So they’re either stupid or actually agree with her ideas but still have to do their jobs, but in the worst way.
i know she’s trying to get charged because that’s how these work, but how do you in good conscience do this to her?
i mean i guess anyone working those jobs had their soul removed already anyway
Cops work for the billionaire class, not us. They do the bidding of their masters and don’t see us as anything but plebs. They don’t have a conscience.
ACAB
Police protect property, not people.
deleted by creator
cops
.
a conscience
Pick one.
Some great answers above/below:
- ACAB - of course! ALL cops!
- Cops work for the billionaire class. They do the bidding of their masters - yep, sure
- Police protect property, not people - so true
/s
The police are there to enforce the law. Are all police officers perfect, no. Is anyone perfect, no.
My point being, you should want the police to follow the law and enforce it. From the article, they were enforcing a law around the Public Order Act.
So doesn’t the problem really exist with those who make the law, not those who enforce it?
(Ok, I’ll get off my high horse now)
Ah yes, the classic “just following orders” defense. I’m glad we didn’t have a big war crime trial about 80 years ago where we collectively agreed that was horse shit.
Come on. There’s quite a difference between the police following the law, and people being lead to their death.
If you disagree with the police following the law, what alternative would you suggest?
So do you think the German police were fine and moral one day and then the next there stuffing people into gas Chambers and everything is black and white like that. Or do you think they started rounding up dissenters and undesirables first?
Civil enforcement, where “police” are not a seperate class with special rights and are not exempt from morality.
You know lemmy is better than Reddit when a post about Greta isn’t filled with people that feel personally attacked by a girl that is just trying to make the world a better place.
That always pissed me off so much.
Yeah, there was a time when non-violent protesters against societal ills were considered brave heroes. What happened?
The polar opposite isn’t necessarily better
He’s not talking in general terms, he’s talking about the Gretta hate train on Reddit, and I for one agree with him.
Even at work grown ass men getting all fucking butt hurt over her fighting to make the world a better place. Disagree with her all you want, even disagree with her methods, but this fucking persecution complex because someone young (and let’s be honest, female) dares to try to make a change is just so pathetic.
What hate train? Reddit has millions of users, even if thousands say bad things about her doesn’t necessarily mean that theres a hate train coming for her, it’s still a small percentage of people who have their own opinion, regardless if you or me agree with them.
Just look at any thread with Greta in the title, all the top comments will be grown men whining about her, her methods, how she’s not making any difference, making fun of the way she talks or her appearance.
I don’t know how anyone can care so much about someone doing something they care about, but Redditors, uniquely, manage to get incredibly worked up.
I think it might depend how soon you look at the thread, and how you sort. I often find on Reddit people moaning about the deplorable mass replies to this or that, but by the time I get there, nine times out of ten the top comments are civil.
Ed: to be fair, though, I assume lots of awful nonsense on the internet so I tend to click past… So I suppose the civil comments have a survivorship bias in my memory.
Also, why are you complaining about people complaining? Should everyone, including yourself, just shut it when it comes to expressing an opinion that might be seen as complaining by others? Or opinions that might offend others? The hipocrisy is huge…
I love a good whinge, everyone does, but a reddit whinge in 2023 leans heavily towards right-wing, pro-capitalist, thinly-veiled anti-women rhetoric. I’m not seeing posts here get bombarded with the same comments over and over.
People are usually way faster to give their opinion when it comes to complaining. It’s normal, deal with it or don’t.
And yet you don’t see it here on Lemmy. The point is the difference in culture between the 2 websites.
What’s the difference in user numbers? Do you follow every thread on Lemmy?I remember seeing negative comments about Greta in Lemmy communities as well, but you don’t see me saying Lemmy sucks or is worse then A or B because of that.
Funny how your and most people minds imagine arguments to justify their opinions… have a great day.
You’re trying real hard to cover up the fact that you’re one of the people being called out.
Lol.
It usually is.
If you strike her down, she will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
If you cut the head off the hydra, two more will grow in its place.
@Sweetpeaches69 Thus, the recursive idea of “ideas” themselves, be it good, bad, or somewhere in-between.
“Well-behaved women seldom make history.”
I won’t agree with her every decision nor statement, but I completely agree with her sentiment. After working for one of these oil majors, I believe it’s going to take a lot of public pressure to get them to do the right thing. They’ll do it, eventually, but the crusty execs need to be made to bend. My coworkers were all into sustainability and excited at new initiatives we’d hear about. It was the executive leadership that inhibited everything.
There will be a time when the protesting stops and the surprise visits start.
They will never bent, but surely rot.
That time hasn’t come yet, though, the lists may have been produced already.
damn i knew the briish were pretty shit but I didn’t know it was this bad 💀
Section 14 of the Public Order Act being used as intended - arresting peaceful protesters and protecting corporate and governmental interests.
Catching a charge for pissing off the oil companies and the governments they’ve bought, is something to be proud of
Greta for EU president.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Metropolitan Police force said Wednesday that the 20-year-old Swedish campaigner was one of 26 people charged after protesters gathered outside the luxury InterContinental Hotel during the Energy Intelligence Forum.
Thunberg was among dozens of protesters who chanted “oily money out” and sought to block access to the hotel on Tuesday.
The three-day conference, which runs until Thursday, features speakers including the chief executives of Shell, Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and Norway’s Equinor, as well as the U.K.’s energy security minister.
The protesters accuse fossil fuel companies of deliberately slowing the global energy transition to renewables in order to make more profit.
They also oppose the British government’s recent approval of drilling for oil in the North Sea, off the Scottish coast.
Thunberg inspired a global youth movement demanding stronger efforts to fight climate change after staging weekly protests outside the Swedish Parliament starting in 2018.
The original article contains 252 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 42%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Mad lad just living her dream
Big W
Little P
First world nations will continue to use fossil fuels as long as it remains economical.
They will not give up a cheap source of energy for ‘the planet’ while their adversaries continue to use it.
To think otherwise is ignorant and foolish. What world do you live in where the US, Russia, and China forego even the slightest bit of economic progression (which leads to military progression)?
It’s both the cheap part and the “while their adversaries continue to do so” parts that are key. The price of solar and storage continue to fall and we need to make the true cost of carbon be reflected in the sale price on a global level. When that happens, we’ll be fine, for the most part.
I wonder how many shots they had to take before they got the picture they wanted for the press. Like this wasnt setup
Wait! You actually think that they use common PR methods to get as much attention to their cause as possible? Who would have thought!
Wait until you find out that Rosa Parks didn’t just randomly decided to sit in front of the bus but was working with the civil rights movement the whole time!
That is a pretty good shot. I can’t believe she’s 20 already! Where did the time go?
Oh wow - you’re a genius.
I like Greta as much as the next liberal, but ngl, this just isn’t news. Reporting Greta getting arrested is like reporting a pizzeria making another pepperoni pizza.
It’s perhaps the first time she’s actually been charged, and one of the first times using the UK’s new anti-protesting laws and certainly a high profile example. So yes, it is news.
Source? The article does not say any of that.
edit: After not getting an answer for awhile, I looked it up. Greta has been arrested twice now, and detained three times.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/why-greta-thunberg-arrested-climate-115413261.html
And charged how many times?
Twice.
Detained =/= charged. You can be arrested and let go without any charge. Your link doesn’t mention any other charges, just that she was detained 3 times.
I don’t agree with you getting downvoted though, you’ve raised valid questions.
It was a joke in bad taste, I’ll take the downvotes, it’s fine. And I was objectively wrong anyway.
She was charged both times though. The first was in Sweden, where she was given a modest fine. You can’t exactly be levied a fine in court without a charge that you did something wrong first, so it’s implied.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
Should a mob of neo-Nazis have the right to block entrance to a synagogue? Probably not, and you cannot add “unless it’s for a good cause” qualifiers to laws like these. I imagine she’ll pay a fine and that’ll be that.
So protests should only be allowed if they don’t inconvenience anyone?
Protesters should be put in a cage out of the way so no one will ever be inconvienced or seen by them.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/Gje3HiouzvQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks, good stuff.
@Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever @BraveSirZaphod
yes, preferably in a fenced in space, 4-5 blocks away from the people that get their wittle feewings hurt because someone is upset that they are burning down the world for fucking money.
/s (in case anyone doesn’t figure it out)
Yep, that’s definitely what I said.
If you’re going to just attack the things you want me to have said, we can save our time.
Then what did you mean to say? Because you apparently think it is “reasonable” to arrest protesters if they get in someone’s way.
My point was that I don’t think it’s absurd for it to not be legal to completely block access to a facility, and that if it were established to be completely legal, malicious groups could cause quite a lot of harm. The law cannot be selectively applied to causes deemed noble, and you probably don’t want the government having the power to decide which those are.
There’s a difference between inconveniencing someone and making it impossible for them to operate and conduct legal affairs. Again, if some group of people were pissed off at you for whatever reason, should it be legal for them to block you from entering your home?
Even in strikes, picket lines don’t make it physically impossible to enter a workplace; they only make in significantly more unpleasant. To flip this, would you defend the right of oil workers to physically prevent Greta from leaving her hotel? Because the law cannot distinguish between these situations. Either this is a legal protest tactic, by any and all parties, or it isn’t.
Thunberg was among dozens of protesters who chanted “oily money out” and sought to block access to the hotel on Tuesday.
I should be clear, I’m basing this off of this line in the article; if they were just standing outside and chanting and access wasn’t prevented, I’d wholeheartedly agree that this would be a gross violation of free speech.
Everything you are describing are the constraints that have been placed there by those in power. The mere fact that you are focused on the idea of angry people stopping you from going where you want to shows that it works. The baddies aren’t the people destroying the world. It is the people who are forcing you to walk around to the back door of the hotel. It is the people who forced you to make a left on 5th street to get to work.
As for “What if they were neonazis”: Honestly, sure. Because if I have pissed off the klan to the point they are organizing protests in front of my house, I want them to. I want people to see just how readily the police protect nazis. And I want to know that I need to go into hiding.
Because if all protests and strikes have to be done in a way that inconveniences absolutely nobody: Nothing will ever happen.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
It’s reasonable to arrest someone blocking access to a hotel. OK. But you didn’t mean “it’s reasonable to arrest someone inconveniencing anyone”. I think you need to explain the functional difference in the specific vs vague interpretation.
It’s the difference between me standing outside your house screaming at you and me physically blocking your door. The first is an inconvenience, the second takes away your ability to use your own property at all. I think there’s a pretty clear functional difference.
The oil people have the legal right to hold a conference. Protesters have the right to stand outside in public land, make their message heard, and generally create an unpleasant environment. They do not have the right to directly stop the conference, and the oil people do not have the right to remove the protesters.
Ok, sure. You are on the side of law and order. But if protests can only exist when they don’t impede the work of those they are protesting, protests will be ignored.
Climate change is the defining story of our lives. It affects every living thing on the planet. This take encapsulates why liberals are derided.
Every person is free to define the story of their own life, not bow to a requirement to share your values.
Climate change may be our greatest challenge, but no challenge, even extinction, is worth needing to all share the same story.
Your take is why liberal policies still dominate the world. Because freedom does matter very greatly.
Removed by mod
That’s gonna be a block for me dawg.
Try to be civil.
Unfortunately, it’s just more complicated than that. You have to tie your own hands with checks and balances, you can’t give yourself too much power, even if that power could be used for good.
As an example, if we had a Kal El of Krypton in real life, he probably wouldn’t stay Superman forever, he’d eventually be something more like Injustice Superman. This is one of the lessons of history, with men like Marx and Lenin having their work corrupted by others that used the tools they assembled for much uglier purposes.
If there was a way to ensure power couldn’t corrupt, then I’d be fine with surrendering some freedom for security. But there’s actually worse things than death, it’s just not the worst we can do. And climate change won’t kill the planet or anything, it’ll just be another geological extinction event, no different from the dinosaur extinction.
It’s just complicated, and while saving the world is the most important thing in front of us, it needs to be done with our modern, weakened political tools. That requires that we acknowledge other people’s rights to disagree with us, no matter how much it hurts.
What exactly are you trying to say? Why do you think this isn’t news?
I was under the impression she gets arrested very regularly, as that’s very common with non-violent activism, to the point of being planned for. She apparently hasn’t, though, thus this attempt at humor didn’t really land well.
I imagine she’s probably ramping up her protest activities recently.
You’re welcome to stay ignorant without encouraging others to do so. This is a mainstream activist that a lot of people want to hear about and follow. So yeah its gonna get reported on.
A major aspect of non-violent activism is disruption, which frequently comes with arrest. Greta is far from the first environmental activist to be arrested, she won’t be the last.
Ghandi pioneered this. He was arrested too. MLK Jr was actually arrested 29 times in his life. It just means you’re doing a good job of challenging the system, it’s not really out of the ordinary.
edit to clarify
