• @Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -471 year ago

    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.

    • @vesuv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      601 year ago

      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.

      • @RustyWizard@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        501 year ago

        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.

          • @RustyWizard@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            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.

      • @Hazdaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -31 year ago

        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.

        • @axexrx@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          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)

          • @FlyingPiisami@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Just pointing out that reindeer aren’t really hunted, they’re more like free roaming cattle. They’re all owned by someone.

          • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            I don’t mean to be a dick, but if everybody’s gonna make changes could these Sami folks eat something else?

      • @Serpent10i@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 year ago

        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”

        • @Hazdaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -251 year ago

          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.

            • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              See recent thread about “just google it” mantra.

              Conversation is helpful. Even with people who disagree with you.

              • @ABCDE@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                “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.

                • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  “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.

                  • @ABCDE@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    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.

          • @TinfoilRat@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Because it’s indigenous land. The point is that the people who live there should get a say after centuries of genocide.