Ignoring (for this thread) the merits/demerits of Thunberg’s speech at the UN, or Thunberg herself specifically:
Does using kids as the spokespeople for a cause really win over an audience? Maybe this is confirmation bias on my part, but ISTM that generally this backfires and causes resentment, because it’s seen as an attempt to use youth to browbeat people into supporting a cause, and using kids as “tools”. I don’t think there has ever been someone with strong views on same-sex marriage or abortion, for instance, who has ever changed their mind because of seeing some kid express opposing views in a public speech - especially if it’s apparent that the kid isn’t really speaking for himself/herself, but rather, was coached by parents or others into the role. (Not saying that Thunberg herself was, but in general)
TL;DR, it generally comes across as manipulative.
As mentioned per OP, I am not asking about Thunberg herself - just asking about kids being used in general. Thunberg sounds like someone of her own views. But I’ve seen instances where kids were speaking out against same-sex marriage, and also being used to criticize presidents in foreign countries, and I can’t help but suspect that those kids were coached throughout.
Right, you don’t want to talk about a specific kid, but that means you can say whatever you want about kids in general without having to defend statements about any particular kid. Inoculating yourself from having anyone take issue with your statements because you can just keep saying “well I’m not talking about that kid, that one is ok, it’s just all the other ones that are being used and have no agency of their own”.
Seems like a problematic condition for the OP if you want to have any kind of meaningful debate here. You are assuming your premise and wanting to force everyone to accept it as a condition of the debate.
One problem with kids speaking on political or global matters is that knowledge is limited and their views are simplistic. I’m sure everyone wants to fix the climate, prevent animal extinction, use clean energy, etc. But those kinds of things have significant tradeoffs that make them difficult to achieve. Kids don’t necessarily have the life experience to understand that saying something like “stop using oil” has lots of complications that are difficult to overcome.
I find it a turn-off when kids are pushing a political cause–even when it’s a cause I agree with. Although I’m sure the kid earnestly believes their position, I feel it’s exploitative because the adults around them shape the message. A kid selling cookies to support a politician is okay, but then adults get involved and write articles in the news and start discussing it on social media. The adults use the kid to serve their own needs and push their message.
Speaking for myself, I remember voting when I was 18 and my perspective was very self-serving. I wanted things that an 18-year-old wants without concern for how they were achieved. I wanted free grants for school and I wanted no taxes. As an adult I understand that taxes pay for those free grants, but 18-year-old me wasn’t so concerned about how to pay for the grants.
This is what I meant, but you said it better. Adults are often trying to push their message, but trying to bank on the “innocence/idealism of youth” to add on more appeal points to their message, as if Political Cause X has more merit because it’s being preached by a kid instead of an adult.
That would be one example, yes. I don’t know of any pro-choicer who has ever become persuaded by a kid holding an anti-abortion sign any more than if that sign were held by an adult. It is likelier to induce anger than persuade.
How is that different from “spokespeople” of any other kind?
Sure it can seem manipulative, but is that much of a factor? Isn’t it usually the people with the strongest opinions on the topic already who most strongly see it as manipulative?
But of course there are differences. Thunberg for instance isn’t being used unwittingly, she’s the head of a movement that her activism created. Not out of thin air, but it’s not like environmental groups saw her and thought “we can use her”, they heard her and though “we agree with and support her”. She also speaks as someone who considers herself directly affected by the issues, similar to, if not as obvious, as the Parkland kids.
Those are different from a kid whose parents have brought up to be “pro-life” reading the kind of talking points you create if you’re a kid being fed on a “pro-life” diet about issues you don’t really understand the impact of.
And again, the backlash comes from those who dislike feeling that they are wrong, and who would rather blame the messenger than acknowledge that it’s the truth of the message that pains them. Does that outweigh all those who were wishywashy and might actually be spurred to action? That depends entirely on the public climate for the issues promoted. A Greta Thunberg 30 years ago would have created more backlash on her movement than she created urgency, because very few people were ready to truly take climate change seriously. Today I think the backlash is insignificant, in part because there’s more fertile ground for her message, and in part because the people who the backlash might come from are already doing their damnedest to hold progress back and have been for years.
Another good example-small children holding up disgusting signs at WBC protests:
Warning, definitely not safe for work How the hell isn’t this child abuse?
I’m sure there are kids who are genuinely pro-life with or without “pro-life coaching.” But whether coached or not, they still wouldn’t win any pro-choicers over to their cause because the ramifications are unchanged. If you are someone who believes that banning abortion would lead to thousands of women dying in back-alley abortions, that wouldn’t change even if it were a photogenic young kid who were holding a microphone preaching the anti-abortion message. That, I think, is what ultimately angers people who are upset about kids being the spokesmen for political causes - the idea that because the kid has the appeal of youth, somehow papers over the implications of Policy X.
That is a good example of what I am asking about. I can’t imagine a single LGBT advocate who would be repelled by an anti-gay message from an adult, but, when seeing an anti-gay message from or worn by a child, would suddenly be won over to the anti-gay cause.
You don’t take the kids to the protest as a rhetorical device. You take the kids to the protest to show them how strongly you feel about the topic. To show them what the family stands for.
Suppose that next year, at the 2020 Republican National Convention, the GOP gets some 11-year old kid wearing a MAGA hat to go on stage and give an impassioned pro-Trump speech addressing the nation. Is there anyone (who opposes Trump) who would be persuaded by such a tactic? I don’t think so. Nobody would think that a political message becomes more valid just because it’s spoken by a kid.
Whatever purpose is served by giving a pro-Trump speech is likely enhanced by a random 11-year-old giving it as opposed to a random 50-year-old. It will get more coverage, the kid will get more interviews, and it will get talked about more. Whether the effect is to energize the base or convert people to the cause, having a kid in that role is likely an effective marketing technique.
However, the downsides can be that the opposition can use the inexperience of the kid as a way to totally discount the message. Even if the message is 100% correct, the opposition can legitimately say “What do they know. They’re only 11.” It can also backfire if the kid seems like they’re just being used for propaganda. If the kid is asked why he supports Trump and the only thing he can say is “Trump is great and the Dems are evil,” then the emptiness of position might be offputting. But if the kid is able to articulate reasonable reasons why they think Trump is the best, it can be effective way to get that message out. The thing that’s lacking is that the kid won’t be seen as an expert or being as knowledgeable about the subject matter.