The GOAT
The GOAT
Helping other people -sometimes by putting yourself in active danger- is so… selfish and privileged???
Seriously, I’d love to hear this person’s idea of what someone with generational wealth should be doing to be a good person.
No, you got to understand:
The best thing to do is launch several startups that will either fail or succeed by sucking all the life of your employees and if you can make your customers lives miserable also you hit the jackpot.
what someone with generational wealth should be doing to be a good person.
Give their butler a generous holiday bonus after they drive you home insufferably drunk on new years
They’re probably self-deprecating to the point where they see her trying to help and feel inadequate for not being able to do the same. They understand that she has the resources to do so and they don’t, but those feelings of inadequacy still don’t go away, so they just want her to be gone so that they don’t have to feel that way anymore.
I see that line of thinking all the time in people who have internalized the American propaganda of “work hard and you’ll find success.” They can’t process the fact that they’re working as hard as they can without achieving success, so they rebel against the idea of success itself regardless of how its used, because they see that as easier to topple than the broken system that causes the issue in the first place.
They’re in such distress that they no longer care about whether we’re moving forward or backward as a society, so long as they feel a bit better right now. It’s exactly where the elite want us to be.
The person in the screenshot complaining about Greta.
Because one else here is being negative about her. So I can’t see where else this imaginary leftist enemy is coming from.
she could have easily become a liberal grifter.
What do you mean by liberal grifter?
no idea what your point is. that’s just a random word definition
twat noun ˈtwät British usually ˈtwat pluraltwats
Simple Definition A Simple Definition is available from our Learner’s Dictionary to help you understand the meaning faster. 1 slang, vulgar + offensive : a woman’s sexual organs 2 British : a stupid or annoying person ‘… no, you’re not sorry, you’re just a twat.’ —Mark Billingham
He means “says what center-left and further progressives want to hear, but then is all talk and no action, no substance”
John Fetterman, Kirsten Sinema, Deja Fox type shit
In order words, Geta could have just been all talk but the fucking IDF roughed her up and she came back for more
Then why didn’t he say that? What you are saying makes complete sense.
Also, there are a lot of trolls trying to mix up and confuse the word liberal. I wanted to know what they exactly meant. No answer, just “blah, blah, insult, blah, blah, blah.”
A lot of people get “liberal” mixed up with “neoliberal,” and it would be kinda funny if it wasn’t so annoying.
Like, yeah, I get it, “neoliberal” contains the word “liberal.” A third grader could figure that out. But “neoliberalism” is a misnomer; there’s nothing liberal about it at all. In fact, it’s a conservative economic ideology.
Liberalism itself sprung from the humanist tradition and has a long philosophical tradition, but people who have never read classic liberal philosophy think they know what it is.
Of course, it developed in the west, so people associate it with imperialist/colonialist projects. But western philosophy also gave us concepts like human rights, secularism, and the scientific method. Are those things colonialist projects, too?
And yeah, there are some corporate sellout neoliberals on the Democrat side of the aisle. That doesn’t make “liberalism” about corporatism, it makes those corporate Dems not really liberal.
Also, lots of republicans are/were neoliberals. Reagan most famously, but also basically every self-declared “fiscal conservative.” “Fiscal responsibility” is code for “stinginess,” the opposite of “liberality.”
“Liberal,” on the other hand, in the sense of “generous,” means “giving freely.” It also comes from the same root as “liberty.”
So yeah, a lot of people attack “liberalism” and “liberals” because they get it confused with “neoliberalism.” Try to explain the difference and you’ll get some tankie accusing you of being an ignorant westerner, or even a fascist, not even grasping the irony that 1), they’re revealing their own ignorance about the subject, and 2), liberalism and fascism are mutually opposed to each other.
Of course, when conservatives use “liberal” as an insult, they’re talking about progressives, leftists, and anyone else they lump into that category.
I guess there’s no winning…
I guess there’s no winning…
That does seem to be the point. Confuse everyone so it loses all meaning.
Then why didn’t he say that?
Bc your original comment in its entirety made very little sense. Why would you ask what a liberal grifter is then feel like it’s necessary to explain what a liberal is? My guess is that you were just being condescending and now realize you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about.
And not being able to understand your condescending nonsense doesn’t make someone a troll. That sounds more like a victim complex and projection cocktail to me.
I appreciate your request for clarification. Political liberalism, economic liberalism, libertarianism, and anti-authoritarianism are three rings on a Venn diagram.
Anyone more fluent in the issue, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Anti-authoritarianism is a component in a vast swath of political ideologies, and by itself is as meaningless as half of an address on an envelope in Hong Kong’s biggest post office.
Political liberalism typically bears features typically associated with the center-left; a lukewarm or even ambivalent stance on the nationalization of important strategic resources, and a penchant for permissive social and cultural dynamics (common sense civil rights like gay marriage and racial justice). Unfortunately, it lends itself to complacency and the paradox of tolerance, (or even outright allying with the political right for the sake of upholding the status quo) hence why leftists tend to barely tolerate or even dislike liberals on principle.
Economic liberalism is essentially laissez-faire Keynesian capitalism. Corporatism thrives under these conditions, leading to the exploitation of the working class by political bodies compromised by their economic power brokers. This in turn leads to corruption, the erosion of human rights, and other awful shit that should be avoided.
Social liberalism is (usually) an anti-authoritarian stance wherein democratic values are openly espoused and this attitude is applied to economic functions. This is the most common political orientation in continental Europe.
Libertarianism is a political orientation which combines an (ostensibly) anti-authoritarian leaning with fanatical devotion to capitalist economic models. This can range from corporatism to anarcho-capitalism. In their eyes, the free market is the greatest thing ever invented. All hail the almighty and benevolent coin.
I’ve been aware of him since the '90s. He’s been anti-vax long before that moved from a liberal to a Republican position during covid. He’s had a lot of other liberal positions that have moved toward conservatism over the years.
It’s the reason I specified that the year is going to be important because he has changed. I think part of the issue is that he’s often just dumb more than funny and that makes him seem more conservative than he is and has been in the past.
But he’s always had a grifter vibe.
Yeah, this. Every day we see people succumbing to the lure of monetizing having tons of attention on them, and a distinct brand.
Also, her parents aren’t that rich:
Using Sweden’s publicly available income tax data, which is generally regarded as being very trustworthy, makes it abundantly evident that the Thunbergs are by no means affluent elites. They represent, at most, what may be called well-off professionals who live simply in a nice part of Stockholm.

Unavoidably, Greta Thunberg’s ascent to prominence as a climate activist has attracted public attention outside of her advocacy. Strangely, a significant amount of that attention has been focused on her family’s alleged wealth—a story that has been repeatedly rehashed online echo chambers, making the untrue assertion that she would inherit millions from her parents. Upon
She’s supposed to be on a Yacht, not a protest flotilla.
And they all consider her activism a con-game because to the wealthy, empathy is just another resource that’s exclusive to them. The note of pity is genuine because they think she’s wasting her life.
Is activism contemporary monasticism?
IIRC, European medieval age societies used or required monasticism to carry out or legitimate deviant behaviour (in retrospect, some of it good, some of it bad) by saying that monks are doing the religious work for them.
I don’t think consider Thunbergs behaviour bad or not noteworthy, but I think our work isn’t exactly to heroise Thunberg as a person and be done with the topics.
I want to point out that is not what you said, but that’s what a lot of people read into this.
Punk and anarchism had this mantra of “kill your idols” and what is meant by that, is that we should turn our heroes back into actionable behaviours of people like you and me.