So why was she protesting the building of a wind farm a few weeks ago?
I find it funny how her protesting something hugely beneficial was met with general silence.
Well because the wind farms are destroying Sami land? And other alternative placements exist for the wind farms, but not for the reindeer the Sami hunt.
Agree or not, but it's not because she's protesting the concept of wind farms in Norway.
To be more blunt, the comment was an outright mischaracterization, and if not out of ignorance, then a pure lie. Typical bullshit used to discredit people offhand.
It was a lie how? She wasn’t protesting that wind farm?
Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here in assuming you're asking that question honestly and not trying to start a debate about whether or not this dishonest nature of the comment constitutes a lie.
So why was she protesting the building of a wind farm a few weeks ago?
I find it funny how her protesting something hugely beneficial was met with general silence.
The comment is set up to try and make Greta appear hypocritical. She's supposed to be an environmentalist and she's protesting wind farms? The comment goes on to extrapolate that to the entire environmentalist community being hypocrites because the protest "was met with general silence".
What it leaves out is the context of the protest, which had absolutely nothing to do with the windmill, but rather the development of land use by peoples who don't have the political power to prevent it.
It's akin to you protesting a children's hospital being put in your backyard and then being accused of hating sick children.
In other comments, OP says "I work in the industry and windmills aren't a problem", blah, blah, blah. This purposely misses the point that the problem is development of these people's land against their will, whether it be a windmill or a Walmart. You can be an environmentalist who is pro windfarm and still have an issue with exploiting people, even if that exploitation is to put up wind farms.
How are wind farms "destroying Sami land"? Please fill me in.
Full disclosure, I work in the industry so I would LOVE to know how a wind turbine tower which at it's base is typically no more than 5 m in diameter (15') is destroying anything when wind farms are commonly installed on farm land with essentially no disruption to the field and it's use to grow food.
This is just a guess, but could the vibrations / low frequency sound be bad for / drive away animals they hunt? I know my community has rebuffed attempts at an offshore one for those reasons and the effect on our fisheries. (I understand sound propagation through water is quite a different beast, but thats my conjecture)
Just pointing out that reindeer aren't really hunted, they're more like free roaming cattle. They're all owned by someone.
I don’t mean to be a dick, but if everybody’s gonna make changes could these Sami folks eat something else?
The context is that it's being built on indigenous land which they use for herding. So it's not perfect, for their side, but it's definitely not "Greta is against wind power"
Wind farms are commonly installed on farm land as well as land used to herd animals. So explain to me why THIS land is any different? It's not. But she was bafflingly protesting against it.
You can find out for yourself rather than attempting to discuss in bad faith.
See recent thread about “just google it” mantra.
Conversation is helpful. Even with people who disagree with you.
"it's not" shows that the person has already made their mind up and done their reading, so I'm not particularly bothered about engaging people like this as they are not actually interested and are just trying to derail in bad faith.
“It’s not” shows that the person has already made up their mind
It shows that they currently disagree with you.
are just trying to derail
Well yeah, a genuine conversation can go anywhere, unlike something on rails which is bound for a single destination. IMO someone who thinks a conversation should behave like a train and follow a predetermined path is missing out on what conversations actually are.
Another way to say “trying to derail” could be “trying to make it go a different direction”.
That’s conflict. That’s when two people have different ideas. Just because they use sarcasm or rhetorical questions doesn’t mean they’re bad actors. Just because they’re mocking your point of view doesn’t mean they’re bad actors.
No, they answered their own question, they are settled and unwilling to discuss. The upvotes on my post show how the consensus is that they are engaging in bad faith. Don't encourage it.
Maybe there's a small difference in behavior between domesticated cattle and undomesticated deers.
Maybe something about methane or something who knows. I'm not up to date on this one.
Because it’s indigenous land. The point is that the people who live there should get a say after centuries of genocide.
So why was she protesting the building of a wind farm a few weeks ago?
I find it funny how her protesting something hugely beneficial was met with general silence.
Well because the wind farms are destroying Sami land? And other alternative placements exist for the wind farms, but not for the reindeer the Sami hunt. Agree or not, but it's not because she's protesting the concept of wind farms in Norway.
To be more blunt, the comment was an outright mischaracterization, and if not out of ignorance, then a pure lie. Typical bullshit used to discredit people offhand.
It was a lie how? She wasn’t protesting that wind farm?
Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here in assuming you're asking that question honestly and not trying to start a debate about whether or not this dishonest nature of the comment constitutes a lie.
The comment is set up to try and make Greta appear hypocritical. She's supposed to be an environmentalist and she's protesting wind farms? The comment goes on to extrapolate that to the entire environmentalist community being hypocrites because the protest "was met with general silence".
What it leaves out is the context of the protest, which had absolutely nothing to do with the windmill, but rather the development of land use by peoples who don't have the political power to prevent it.
It's akin to you protesting a children's hospital being put in your backyard and then being accused of hating sick children.
In other comments, OP says "I work in the industry and windmills aren't a problem", blah, blah, blah. This purposely misses the point that the problem is development of these people's land against their will, whether it be a windmill or a Walmart. You can be an environmentalist who is pro windfarm and still have an issue with exploiting people, even if that exploitation is to put up wind farms.
How are wind farms "destroying Sami land"? Please fill me in.
Full disclosure, I work in the industry so I would LOVE to know how a wind turbine tower which at it's base is typically no more than 5 m in diameter (15') is destroying anything when wind farms are commonly installed on farm land with essentially no disruption to the field and it's use to grow food.
This is just a guess, but could the vibrations / low frequency sound be bad for / drive away animals they hunt? I know my community has rebuffed attempts at an offshore one for those reasons and the effect on our fisheries. (I understand sound propagation through water is quite a different beast, but thats my conjecture)
Just pointing out that reindeer aren't really hunted, they're more like free roaming cattle. They're all owned by someone.
I don’t mean to be a dick, but if everybody’s gonna make changes could these Sami folks eat something else?
My dad works for big windmills too
I thought you were kidding, but she actually did. Wow!
The context is that it's being built on indigenous land which they use for herding. So it's not perfect, for their side, but it's definitely not "Greta is against wind power"
Wind farms are commonly installed on farm land as well as land used to herd animals. So explain to me why THIS land is any different? It's not. But she was bafflingly protesting against it.
You can find out for yourself rather than attempting to discuss in bad faith.
See recent thread about “just google it” mantra.
Conversation is helpful. Even with people who disagree with you.
"it's not" shows that the person has already made their mind up and done their reading, so I'm not particularly bothered about engaging people like this as they are not actually interested and are just trying to derail in bad faith.
It shows that they currently disagree with you.
Well yeah, a genuine conversation can go anywhere, unlike something on rails which is bound for a single destination. IMO someone who thinks a conversation should behave like a train and follow a predetermined path is missing out on what conversations actually are.
Another way to say “trying to derail” could be “trying to make it go a different direction”.
That’s conflict. That’s when two people have different ideas. Just because they use sarcasm or rhetorical questions doesn’t mean they’re bad actors. Just because they’re mocking your point of view doesn’t mean they’re bad actors.
No, they answered their own question, they are settled and unwilling to discuss. The upvotes on my post show how the consensus is that they are engaging in bad faith. Don't encourage it.
Maybe there's a small difference in behavior between domesticated cattle and undomesticated deers.
Maybe something about methane or something who knows. I'm not up to date on this one.
Because it’s indigenous land. The point is that the people who live there should get a say after centuries of genocide.