Hey ya’ll.
I’m searching for climate activists to join my very own and brand new #fediverse instance at ClimateJustice.social.
If you’d like to share posts about the climate but are sick of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter & so on spying on you, then this is exactly for you.
Any questions just ask. 
Please do not get me wrong for the following words I would like to deploy here:
I very much appreciate any attempt to save our planet earth, but this mission is just too important to exclude other communication platforms. Although your criticism about spying is acknowledged and applies, I believe that you can reach far more people to unite in the fight against climate change when you tend to include other social media channels, wouldn’t you agree?
I’m not suggesting anyone (who wouldn’t anyway) should stop using these platforms if they have important messages to spread. But there are also people who exclusively use the fediverse and they too would benefit from being informed and mobilized.
Really cool nickname! 
I think there’s enough extremism in the world already. This site has nothing to do climate change… Plenty of woke kids on various FB pages. Please leave this one alone.
Could you please be a bit clearer about what you try to imply?
Where have you encountered any kind of extremism in the posting you cited or on the page that this topic is about?
Who shall be left alone and by whom?
Frankly, I don’t get it. Not one single bit. 
No, I think @Jason_Mitchell is right about one thing: I am an extremist. Or at least I aid extremism. I think it’s important not to oppose everyone who has different views than you, but support anyone who is generally on your side. Just like this image explains:
Extremism does not solve a single problem in the world, but listening to people’s sorrows and at least trying to understand reasons for extremism will. Every person has its history.
“If you talk to animals, they will talk with you, and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them, you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears, one destroys.” (Chief Dan George)
There is no other way than talking…
Let’s have long, fruitful discussions with fascist maniacs like Bolsonaro, or Trump, or Añez. Let’s send a petition to Chevron asking them to please stop destroying the environment and committing genocide. I cannot wait to hear about the sorrows of Jeff Bezos, the richest man in all of history, because somehow listening to the ruling class will reverse climate change?
We are currently experiencing the first stages of a global climate catastrophe that will cost millions of lives and could have been prevented if not for the tut-tutting of people decrying extreme measures, such as not permitting genocidal megacorporations to pump trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. That was the ‘talk to power’ phase - it didn’t work.
So now, we need action. Centrist half-measures against climate change from liberal governments have landed us in the current predicament. We tried talking, now we need action, or else.
You have to understand the people who voted for Trump and Bolsonaro, then you know where to start with change. It is all about hearing, knowing, and convincing them, in this order. Before Trump started to advertise the mask, many other people wore it. I am pretty sure that they heard him when he said, that the mask was not necessary. They just have not listened to him alone…
I would not like to hear him, because he is an extremist. But it is absolutely necessary to hear what he says, even if it might be nonsense. Because so many people take such nonsense for granted. Full throttle, pushing forward fast solutions, we are the champions, let’s go and make us great again! We need to gain the power of those who believe in him, we just cannot ignore so many people who voted for him. They are of any kind, rich or poor, it does not matter. The more we are listening to all people, the better solutions we can find for a great majority of them. We can show that Trump and Bolsonaro are not the ones who save lives. Mankind thinks in groups and parties, but to achieve success against climate change, we should evolve a better thinking and include almost all people by not telling them what they have done bad, and that they must change rapidly, otherwise bad things are going to happen. I believe that it is most useful to convince them to change the respective lifestyle a little bit, and to show nowadays solutions to reduce the ecological footprint for a better living. Some of them will follow, and some will not. It still is their own decision. That is democracy.
Of course, I do not want to listen to someone who yells at me because he is convinced of yelling to make his point clear. This is very extreme to me. But I am inclined to listen to someone who wants to talk with me in a moderate way. And guess what: It is just the way how Trump talks sometimes. That is fascinating, indeed, because it seems he knows about adjusting the tone when he wants to convince people. Will I hear this tone from a common extremist? Yelling at each other is no way for people to come together, I just walk away from everyone who yells at me.
If we shout loud enough, you’ll have to listen. That’s the beauty of shouting!
If you think Trump (and Obama, and Bush, and Clinton) flouting climate accords and keeping thousands of people in concentration camps, or Bolsonaro bulldozing the rainforest, or Añez exterminating indigenous populations, are in any way more “moderate” than someone shouting through a megaphone that they want their children to not die in a climate holocaust, I’m not sure how this discussion can be fruitful.
We have no interest in hearing what the ruling class have to say, and we will yell as loudly as we can so that as many people as possible will hear what we have to say. If anger is offensive to you, that’s too bad, because we are definitely angry.
We’re yelling because people are dying and anyone who is turned off climate action because it involves people raising their voices, wasn’t going to be of any help anyway. No one is sure what to do or how to help, but one thing is sure: tone policing gets us absolutely nowhere. There are no moral victories in the real world.
No, as long as I can walk away from you - which is what people do when it gets (too) loud.
I have not raised this point, that has been you, so why do you think I would think this way? You should not judge about other people whose opinions have not been heard, yet, but listen to them first…
If you have no interest in hearing other people, why should you be heard?
I am not obliged to hear you, but I certainly will do when you change your tone.
“Tone policing” is one requirement to talk with each other and to make agreements, because everyone has interests. By yelling, you will not get very far with yours, instead, I will be far away from you so I do not have to hear you anymore. Then, you can ask yourself if you really want to live for yourselves on this planet in a group of people who keep on being unsatisfied…
Perhaps you will not listen to people yelling, but will the ruling class listen to people who aren’t? To be listened to, you have to be a minimum known, your mesage must spread. And angry messages spread much faster than calm ones. Even if you aren’t credible, people will talk about the angry person yelling everywhere.
Most of the time, change cannot come without conflict.
Only my two cents.
Yeah, Greta obviously thought the same when she held her speech at the UNO headquarter. A lot of people shut their ears and turned away from her afterwards, but these people are much too important for the fight against climate change.
And what comes after conflict? It doubt that it will be peace and harmony.
I don’t completely agree. But nevertheless, is it worse than nothing?
It depends on the people ruling. And how this conflict came. It depends on so many things, that I think this question can’t be answered surely. But what will come after may be better, and if not, conflict will go on until there is peace.
I think harmony is idyllic. So indeed no.
I believe it is worse. She really has good intentions, but she gets discredited by many people, they will not listen to her anymore just because of her furious speech. It does not matter what she says to them anymore, because she has been yelling. I have read opinions from behaviourists that she has launched this “process” to “nerve” people, especially those who want their little “comfortable world” to stay forever.
Alright, so what’s your solution, Mr Chamberlain? Because we’ve been talking for decades and if even a fifteen year old girl speaking at a lectern gives you the vapours, what’s our recourse? Write sternly worded letters to the newspapers? Not too sternly of course, that would be uncivil and you’d stop listening.
While the people who are fleeing the world’s coasts because of catastrophic storms may not have the time to appreciate your efforts, the ruling class are sure to be very grateful to hear you’re guarding The Discourse.
Do you really think a discourse is possible when you cant like this? You only can win attention from others if you begin trying to understand their positions. I hear you, which is the reason why I am still here.
You want a discourse? You’re in one. So for goodness’ sake, please stop your whining about tone and answer the question.
In my opinion, you are at best partially correct.
That’s just the excuse to not listen to what she has to say. She explained her motives long enough and acted peaceful for a very long time.
That’s what got her invited. She has a message, lends us credibility and allows us to pretend we do care and are willing to act on it; but she is no pain in the a** but really easy listening and easy going.
But suddenly she shows, that she really is annoyed, angry and energetic and not just a child being humbled by all those great leader and not willing to play her role.
So, what to do? Let’s blame her for shouting.
Good excuse to forget about the message and the problems, because she has been shouting.
I will concede, that there are people, who had good intentions and were annoyed by her behaviour. But if those weathered men and women are not able to look beyond this, they sureley are in the wrong position anyway. I would bet my monthly income on it, that all of them have taken to shouting at one time or the other in their professional carreer.
There we are.
I bet, that’s correct. But this exactly shows, that it’s not the shouting, that is the problem.
It’s the fact, that people can not ignore this shouting. Civilised discussions and protests in the pedestrian zone are OK to all those in their car on the motorway listening to their playlist.
Hey, they are right, it’s important. I am with them.
As soon, as the protest is taken to the streets and on the motorways, this tune changes.
They may be right and it might be important, but why on the street. Let them protest in the pedestrian zone (but not while I want to go shopping).
So, where is the problem?
Is it really the shouting?
I guess it’s rather, that this kind of shouting takes people out of their comfort zone. They are inevitably confronted with a hurtful truth, that they can not ignore.
On the other hand I do agree, that shouting does not win you an argument.
It might be helpful as a tool to create attention, but you have to win over the majority in another way.
If someone needs proof of this, most people can take a look at their own private world (family, friends, peer group …). When the shouting starts, the arguments are lost.
People do hear each other, but they no longer listen. Communication is working different than by the level of decibel; although this can work out given the right setting. Unfortunately winning this way is leaving the “loser” with a bad feeling and a grudge, making the next meeting/discussion possibly harder and probably gruesome.
To make it clear, I am no advocate for shouting to communicate, but the political/business stage is a bit different, as there is a certain kind of theatrical element to it (putting on a show).
