Environmentalists be like: let them eat
I’m mainly a herbivore!
I concur human overpopulation is the root cause of many major issues on our planet.
That’s fine. Then there is no reason to bring up alleged or actual conditions of the mind than to attempt to discredit her. It’s a cheap and lazy way out.
You can’t discredit what was never credited in the first place.
Tweren’t me put her in the spotlight.
Who writes these talking points? They’re lame.
That’s not what discredit means.
verb: discredits, discrediting, discredited
- Harm the good reputation of.
‘his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him’
She never had a reputation. That’s the point. She was a nobody until she made a fuss, and then certain people made a fuss about her.
No one harmed her good reputation. She never had one.
That could be argued. But I’m not criticising or offering my opinions on that. I’m criticising the actions of detractors that have chosen to use irrelevant things, like appearance, alleged mental health and other alleged or implied aspects of her that would allegedly impair her ability to think for herself. I’ve said this before. The argument doesn’t hold water if all a detractor can do is mock her.
If she never had a good reputation, why have people bothered at all?
Joshua Wong was a nobody until he made a fuss.
Everybody is a nobody at some point.
Where do you draw the line? That only people already of notoriety/fame/infamy can make a fuss?
Maybe we should have let Ted Bundy become an activist instead of throwing him in prison. He became infamous. He was a somebody.
Everything’s alleged, dependent on where you choose to place the goalposts. I would call it moderately well documented, But if she weren’t out there telling us what to do, then I would gladly leave it alone.
You can’t have it both ways. If she’s not playing with a full deck, then she’s not a super genius who knows better than the rest of us about global warming or anything else. If we can’t judge people’s right to be taken seriously on that basis, why not just take policy advice from alleged winos on the street?
We all know full well why they bothered at all. The global warming profiteers saw her as a useful idiot. Her usefulness is rapidly fading. In time they will kick her to the curb. In the meantime, she is their spokesperson, and it is her job to take all the abuse they have earned. Unless she chooses to resign, which I would encourage her to do.
She opened her yap. Then a very cynical bunch of frauds encouraged her to keep flapping her gums, and she didn’t say no. That makes her fair game. Because she can’t have it both ways either.
SHE SIGNED ON. If she didn’t know what she would get, then she’s as stupid as her worst critics say she is.
The only one who should be “fair game” here is you for harboring some of the most ignorant and uninformed views of autism (in this case, specifically Asperger’s) I’ve heard in awhile.
The other thing you don’t get, presumably not having the advantages of being Autistic, is that we don’t. give. a. crap. about the kind of “abuse” she’s getting. I guarantee you she doesn’t care a bit about any aspersions you or anyone else are casting on her reputation, intellect, or anything else. Because we deal in facts, not idiotic interpersonal pissing contests like most neurotypicals. It’s about the work or whatever needs to happen because of facts, not agonizing over being called names by a bunch of people who can’t understand science.
Is autism the new ADHD? A cure looking for a disease?
Yes I can just feel all the apatheia.
You’re being overly harsh here. She is stupid, but she is stupid in largely the same way all children are stupid…she is inexperienced and undeveloped. I have no idea to what extent she has mental deficiencies, and even if she does it doesn’t detract from the substance of her arguments. The problem I have with this is that certain individuals are obviously using her to promote an agenda, and I feel bad that she is being so used. Why would I listen to a child on an issue of this importance? If the child is incredibly mature and makes a good argument, great! I listen to the reasonableness and logic of arguments, but certain people are using this poor girl for the emotional impact.
Well, failing to inform oneself of a bare minimum of facts before spouting off as you have done is offensive.
So she’s being manipulated.
So she’s not being manipulated.
Make up your mind. Looks like you’re moving the goalposts IMO.
And you’re playing with a full deck? Sorry. If you have all the answers, then you’ll have my vote for Parliament.
I don’t have a problem if you disagree with her opinion. But that’s not what you’re doing. You’re mocking uncontrollable and irrelevant aspects of a person who, disagree or not, is particularly brave to go and speak out for what she believes in. I’m a coward compared to her, as all I’ve been able to do at this moment is sit behind the protection of the computer monitor. We, as a species, once thought Women, Black people, East Asians, Hispanics, First Nations, Gay People, South Asians and Jewish People were of inferior intelligence and were unable to think for themselves. We once thought that voting might be too hard for women and it was better to exclude them because they might be overwhelmed by the choice. It’s extremely bigoted to think so today. We thought it was OK to hold other humans as possessions, and some still think that way today. They don’t think of them as human, but as animals. In many ways, we are past that. Fair game doesn’t mean you should be mocking someone’s appearance, mental health and implying they’re not fully there in lieu of a good argument of what she’s saying. Fair game is giving her ideas that are brought to the table fair and open criticism. You’re not criticising her, you’re mocking her, you’re dismissing her as less than you because she has autism, despite proof that autism or alleged foetal alcohol syndrome is not necessarily a proverbial mental death sentence. If she is coherently expressing her freedom of speech in the form of an opinion, then she has more than enough facilities to do so. You have provided us with ZERO coherent arguments about her opinion, instead choosing to try to tell everyone she’s, as you say ‘not playing with a full deck of cards’. That’s not an argument. You don’t have an argument, because if you did, you would be talking about it, sourcing your talking points and offering evidence and proof. You’ve done none of that. What you are saying is bigotry, and I’m calling it out.
And, by the way, So-called ‘Winos’ have just as much a right to freedom of speech as anyone else, and are not incapable of expressing their opinions either.
Yeah, she’s stupid not because she’s autistic. She’s just naive and young. A lot of young people are like her now.
Minimal awareness of facts, you say?
Maybe you’re all quite correct and I’m the bigot. Maybe she’s so damn clever she concocted this whole scheme to get out of school.
Or maybe certain people should know better by now than to call someone ignorant simply for not agreeing with you.
By the way, everyone who doesn’t fit in fantasizes about having a superpower…
It gets worse:
Trying to mess with the lives of everyone in the civilized world is the one thing that makes her feel better about herself. Screw that.
When I call someone ignorant. I’m prepared to back it up. Some of you would be well advised to follow my example. Because unless you are prepared to give evidence that she’s a super genius, you are all projecting something awful.
But not to being listened to. Or respected. It’s not an opinion she’s expressing. It’s a program to meddle with everyone’s lives. Surely you can see the difference? She’s not out there discussing her favorite Pokemon. She wants to hike your energy bills.
Everything I’ve said is admitted by herself. Everything said in rebuttal to me has been evasive at best, and often emotionalistic and unwarranted abuse. And now, hiding behind “it’s just an opinion?” Shame. We all know full well it’s not just an opinion.
Free speech? Let her say what she wants, and let me say what I want, and let us all say what we can all plainly see. When we’re done, we can ignore her. That’s how this free speech thing is supposed to work. It cuts both ways.
By the way, why was this thread started in the first place?
More of ignorant me doing the research right-thinking others can’t be bothered to do:
She nearly starved herself to death when she was eleven. Not cool. Oh, and it can cause developmental damage.