Great take on this by First Dog on the Moon.
*So many old white men (and their various well clenched friends) freaking out about this tiny Swedish climate demon. Who is she?
*
Kids being used to promote various causes get about the same reaction from me as when they’re used in ads for cars or other consumer products.
I don’t buy what they’re selling.
This gets to the OP. Should children be used to further political agendas?
I think not, for a whole host of reasons. You clearly disagree. So there.
I think certain teens or kids have views that are their own. I know I did. I don’t have an issue with people speaking up about things that impact their lives.
I think in general, a kid’s understanding of the issues will be more superficial than an adult. Certainly there are some kids which are well versed in a topic and may have more knowledge than some adults, but in general an adult will have a more well-rounded understanding of the issue. When a kid is supported or promoted for an issue, that can help strengthen the issue for the kid. That is, the kid further believes in the issue because the adults encourage the kid rather than the kid is coming to the conclusion on their own.
Take something like a kid holding a sign either promoting or discouraging homosexuality. A kid may have a slim understanding of homosexuality, human sexuality, and even their own sexuality. But adults who share the same belief will promote the kid and that view can become stronger in the kid because of the encouragement. Rather than the kid learning more about the issue with life experience, the world, people, sexuality, etc. to better understand the issue, the kid has the issue strengthened in their mind because the kid is encouraged by adults with that agenda to continue promoting the issue.
But is that bad? I explicitly teach my son that racism and homophobia and sexism exist in society and that we have to be careful not to internalize them. I don’t sit him down and lecture him, but when these things come up, I make sure to be frank and open with him about how I feel and how the world works. I think that’s good parenting, not indoctrination. He may have different views about some things when he’s an adult, and I respect that, but I don’t think my goal should be to send him out into the world tabula rasa: he’s going to be surrounded by other factors influencing him all sorts of ways, and I don’t think me just noping out of that scene and leaving it for his friends, the media, and whatever dreck he finds on the internet to be the only voices he hears is somehow a virtuous. That’s not leaving him more free to find his own path.
“She’s making the end of the world sound like it’s the end of the world!”
That is all excellent and the way it should be. Kids will learn from their environment, their values will come from those around them, etc. But I think the problem is more about what is in the OP: using a kid as a spokesperson. When adults start to put the kid on camera, podiums, social media, etc. to express certain views, it becomes more about the adults using the kid as a tool for that agenda rather than the kid expressing their beliefs. The adults are typically the gatekeepers for the larger stage. When they allow kids access to that stage, it is often for the ulterior motives of the adult. The kid may think that their belief is correct because of the publicity alone.
Well, all the girls in my daughter’s school just love Greta, they are even more committed to the environment (at least verbally - these are teens, after all), and she’s easily going to be the most referenced person in this years round of College Board Common/Coalition App essays.
So, yes, she’s having the desired effect.
Weird how so many conservatives are worried about exploiting children for political gain, but decry politics when dealing with the issue of massacred children in school rooms. Seems their concern for Greta is a little… misplaced.
I don’t see that the speaker matters at all, it is only the message that has a chance to actually change minds. And even then, it is pretty rare for a speech, given by anyone at all, to change even a single mind.
What happens, however, is not that someone gives a speech and changes minds, but that someone gives a speech and gets people thinking about it. People who otherwise may not have given the subject a second thought. In the case of the girl who must not be named, people are talking about her back and forth, some positive, some negative, some hateful, some supportive, but all are engaged in a conversation that is at least tangentially related to her topic, global climate deterioration.
That’s why people use kids to get a message across. Not because the kid knows more, but because the kid is more noticeable than another white guy droning on about his ideology of the week. Though we may not name her in this thread, can anyone, off the top off their head, name anyone else who talked at the UN about their concerns about our climate? Sounds like her “gimmick” worked to me.
And, sometimes, kids are exploited by their parents, and sometimes they are acting on their own agency. The younger they are, the more likely it is that they are operating under their parent’s influence; I don’t think a 5 year old with a “God Hates Fags!” sign came to that conclusion and picked that sign themself, but if an older teen someone sails solo across ocean to address political and business leaders, then I lean a bit more towards them having chosen that agency. If you are a parent of a kid, then determining whether you are enabling you child to express themself, rather than using your child to voice your opinion is something that you know. I don’t know that it is possible to know for sure from the outside which is which, so I don’t see a reason to judge based on that. Judge based on the message, not the messenger, I say.
Define “used” - when the kid has the same agenda.
As a matter of establish law, kids can’t consent.
So does that kid actually have the same agenda or is that kid just brainwashed?
Which is utterly fucking meaningless in this context.
Can’t consent to what, exactly? Yes, there are “establish[ed] laws” specifying that, for example, minors below a certain age is not considered capable of consenting to have sex with an adult, or to enter into (most) legal contracts.
But most teenagers can, for example, obtain work permits and agree to terms of employment; in many states they can also consent to an abortion or to an HIV test. In certain cases they are considered legally able to consent to a warrantless search and have their own bank accounts.
So claiming that it’s not possible for a (teenage) minor to have their “own agenda” on a matter of public policy because “kids can’t consent” is illogical. Minors above the age of 14 or 15 actually can legally consent to a large number of things, and can also have their own opinions and advocate for causes of their own choice. Just because they’re minors doesn’t mean they’re automatically relegated to the status of mere mouthpieces of the adults around them.
Who is “using” her? Give us cites and lists.
Your point is irrelevant, but it’s also wrong - let’s say we’re talking about Thunberg (because it’d be disingenuous to think this thread is actually about anyone else) or some other 16 y.o. Swede- legally, they’re old enough to consent to sex. By a year already.
So, old enough to decide to fuck, but not to object to being fucked over, is that what you’re saying
Just as a side note about the kid Greta Thunberg, who according to the OP is apparently being “used” by someone or other. Due to her inspiration, yesterday an estimated 6.6 million young people took to the streets in climate marches around the world. Here in Canada Thunberg herself was in Montreal yesterday to join 500,000 young people and political leaders in that climate protest, where she met with Prime Minister Trudeau and was given the key to the city by the mayor. Thunberg has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
“Does this really achieve the desired effect?” Let’s just say it moved the needle another increment. Incidentally, Thunberg has said that her parents had nothing to do with her activism, which she began entirely on her own when she first confronted the Swedish parliament.
you mean the same conservatives who call abortion “murder” but when a few dozen grade school kids get blown away they sit on their hands and say “There’s nothing we can do?” Or the conservatives who are all about “states rights” until California tries to do something?
And that’s the other part.
That a speaker doesn’t do it “for you” may be because the message wasn’t tailored to you. The message was intended for someone else, and while you are sitting there complaining that you aren’t moved enough to do anything to help to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate destabilization on future generations, those future generations are mobilizing and pushing you out of the way.
*not you you, but you you
It’s amazing how American conservatives have effectively lost a generation of suburban teenage girls… and the boys who wish to date them.