Message from @Cobra Commander
Discord ID: 651905585242964019
```In February 2019, Thunberg shared a stage with the then President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, where he outlined "In the next financial period from 2021 to 2027, every fourth euro spent within the EU budget will go towards action to mitigate climate change".[83] Climate issues also played a significant role in European Parliament election in May 2019[84] as Green parties recorded their highest ever score,[85] boosting their MEP numbers from 52 to 72.[86] Many of the gains came from northern European countries where young people have taken to the streets inspired by Thunberg```
Why should she change her approach when it appears to be working
changing her approach seems more like something the status quo, 'denialists' would want
Because this doesn't address popular support from people who aren't world leaders? Again, other activists have criticized her approach.
There's a *little bit* on people being inspired but that's it
```In June 2019, Swedish Railways (SJ) reported that the number of Swedes taking the train for domestic journeys had risen by 8% from the previous year, reflecting growing public concern about the impact of flying on CO2 emissions that is highlighted by Thunberg's refusal to fly to international conferences. ```
you keep saying stuff that appears to not be true
ok i read it
ok i read that one too
he is basically proving her point
```Democracy often calls for waiting and seeing. Patience may be democracy’s cardinal virtue. Climate change is a serious issue. But to say, “We can’t wait,” is to invite a problem just as grave.```
I don't think there is a crisis of democracy, especially considering the money in politics that fights AGAINST climate change action
if anything, she is highlighting the need to EXPAND democracy, and maybe have less 'representation' because it's much harder to bribe an entire society than a few reps
he is basically saying populism is at odds with democracy, which is nonsensical
what is more democratic than taking your message to the people on twitter and chastizing leaders in public to their face when they are shown not to be taking it seriously and/or might be corrupt on the topic?
article about that article you linked
```Author's claim is that Thunberg's activism is antidemocratic because she privileges action over argument. But his strategy to persuade you of that is to (very explicitly) disqualify her, listing a series of attributes that make her unsuited to be a partner in democratic debate.```
no, it's about widening democracy and having less represenTATIVES
as in more direct democracy
fewer buffer layers inbetween
You could just limit congressional terms and have more luck there
no that's the wrong axis, temporal, you want to increase the surface area of contact
in the us, maybe have 1305 reps instead of 435, so 3 x more
or just do more direct voting since tech has advanced beyond pony express
``` Industry-backed climate denier Steve Milloy chimed into the op-ed debate on August 3 by tweeting:```
```She's ignorant, maniacal and is being mercilessly manipulated by adult climate bedwetters funded by Putin? ```
More direct democracy would be more like mob rule though, in regard to less representatives. Just keep the representative count we have but have limits to their terms. This would do wonders on the corruption in the government and could also incentivise voting more by restoring faith in a (hopefully) less polarized governmental system.
Voting is mob rule?
That meme is terrible
Direct voting yes
Why is it mob rule? It's how many US states do it
like in Cali with propositions
legislators craft the bill, population at large votes yes or no
Term limits address a different issue. You can REALLY help anti-corruption by increasing the surface area to attack
if congress grew 3x, they would have to bribe more people than currently vote in congress
How would increasing the size of congress fix corruption exactly? How exactly would that be too many people to bribe? Seems rather risky.