Sorry but this is just batshit crazy.

Make a list of the world’s 500 most greenhouse gas producing companies. Ask the board of each of them who Greta should endorse and they would unanimously say that she should make a statement refusing to endorse either.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to realise that the least worst option is the best option, particularly when the people voting for the worst option will not be dissuaded.

I realise that most lemmy users revere Greta like the morning sun, but I’m supremely confident that if Trump wins a lot of “message voters” and their influencers will feel pretty silly in a year or so.

What is this alternative of which you speak?

Was that a legit question?

The answer seems kinda obvious.

Most of the replies you’ve received are trying to explain that saying “men” are what is wrong with “people” is a generalisation that is unhelpful and harms all men.

It’s true that the perp is a man, and it’s also true that most violence against women is perpetrated by men. However, that doesn’t mean there’s a causal link between being a man and assaulting women.

It’s much more likely that the addressable causes underlying this “man’s” actions are poverty, lack of mental health support, and cultural norms including but not limited to religion.

When you suggest that “men” are the cause of what happened to this athlete, it’s not surprising that men will be offended. To thereafter frame the obvious response as sexist is projection, frankly.