Toot link; transcript:
Greta Thunberg could have, by now, carved out a very comfortable life for herself as a liberal grifter-celebrity offering platitudes about personal responsibility at Davos. Instead she connected the dots between ecocide, capital, and empire, aiming squarely at the heart of the beast. And now fresh out of captivity she downplays her own suffering to recenter the urgency of aid to the Palestinian people. No wonder she’s hated by the fascist+lib coalition that rules this world.
Author: JP (@[email protected])
Grifting implies she isn’t doing what she’s doing for a cause, but for personal financial gain. And from all that I’ve seen there’s no reason to think she’s just paying lip-service to her beliefs.
Did you think I said she was grifting or something?
Something can be said implicitly without ever stating it plain speech.
Hunger does not cause greed and ambition, it just drives the desire to eat. It is one’s own choices that determine whether their goals are selfish or selfless.
Ok, well you completely misread what I said then.
You’re literally saying the need to eat drives people to be grifters. Right after asking how she gets the food on the table. Someone who wants others to think she’s a grifter would use those exact words.
Yes, I’m identifying an issue in the current capitalist-dominated world, where if you want to survive, you need to do something that someone will give you money for. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, grifting is the easiest way to do that. I’m not saying she did it, clearly she didn’t. I’m saying that there has to be pressure for someone like her to do it because you need to eat sometimes.
Only an idiot would think that.
Only an idiot would be in complete denial on how others perceive their words.
Only an idiot would be proud of misreading someone else’s words, rather than embarrassed.
At no point did I misread what you wrote. You literally asked how she can pay for groceries. You literally said the need to eat drives people who have opportunity into being grifter-celebs. I merely pointed out how those sentences can be misinterpreted as sometime implying she’s a grifter. Now you could be a normal person and acknowledge that not only can it be misinterpreted but, based on the downvotes, it was misinterpreted, but you’re hellbent on being infallible. So feel free to continue barking back, all it does is prove that you are an idiot who is in complete denial.
Yes…
Yes…
Do you see the contrast there?
Let me show you some more examples.
I know some that farmers can eat a lot of the food they grow. Josh isn’t a farmer, so how does he manage to eat? Do you think that suggests that Josh is, secretly, a farmer? Or can you understand that I’m contrasting Josh, who isn’t a farmer with someone who is a farmer?
Some people get big muscles because they do manual labour. But, Dwayne Johnson doesn’t do manual labour, how does he manage to have such big muscles? Now, am I implying here that Dwayne is actually doing manual labour? Or am I saying “in contrast with this other group, it isn’t obvious how he does it”?
Only by morons.
If I tell you that in your examples you explicitly say “Josh isn’t a farmer” and “Dwayne Johnson doesn’t do manual labor” but at no point did you say “Greta is not a grifter”, will you get where you went wrong? Or do I need to turn your examples into something that actually reflects what you said?