# Greenpeace: Fucking idiots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 18, 2006, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598 "2006-12-18T06:21:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/61 "2006-12-19T19:12:08Z")
[QUOTE=Steve MB] Hokay. I will interpret your statement to mean that you advocate the socioeconomic platform of Pol Pot… [/QUOTE] An utterly repulsive suggestion. I trust made hastily, and instantly regretted. If I am mistaken, please accept my invitation to lick my rosy radical rectum. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/62 "2006-12-19T19:22:20Z")
Here’s an ongoing GD thread: [What would a Green America be like?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=400598) (The Green Party, of course, != Greenpeace.) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/63 "2006-12-19T21:40:05Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Suffice to say that future historians (knock wood…) will gasp in awe at the wealth we have generated [/QUOTE] I rather doubt that, for the same reason most moderns are not impressed by the wealth generated by the Renaissance (considered fairly and in context, yes, it’s impressive, but most people will consider it based on what they know in their own time and find the best of the past to represent appalling squalor). > [@](#): > > How many different kinds of dog food do we need? Enough to be sure of finding one that meets your needs. As to a numerical value, YMMV. > [@](#): > > What sane society would offer tax incentives to promote the purchase of SUV’s? That’s a typical example of where you end up when the government tries to create grand plans for socieity. > [@](#): > > (Hence the throwaway line “techno Amish” to describe a worldview that seeks to use our technological advances to decrease our dependency and to use education to decrease the empty consumerism which is its root cause. To advocate such change at the “root cause” is the very meaning of the word “radical”. I am not convinced that people are born with a deep craving for loud, shiny crap, I believe that are perverted that way by…well, us. I should like us to stop.) Well, the details of how you propose to “educate” and “stop” people are precisely what I require in order to evaluate the initial conclusion I stated upthread. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/64 "2006-12-19T22:46:35Z")
Man, what is it with you? Do you reallly think you throw a stink bomb like your “Pol Pot” crack above, and then engage me in polite discourse as though it never happened? Is this how they do things on your home planet? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Swan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_Swan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Swan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/65 "2006-12-19T23:48:47Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Man, what is it with you? Do you reallly think you throw a stink bomb like your “Pol Pot” crack above, and then engage me in polite discourse as though it never happened? Is this how they do things on your home planet? [/QUOTE] I didn’t think he was serious with the Pol Pot comment. I thought he was trying to make the point that he could make all sorts of outlandish assumptions if you won’t clarify what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/66 "2006-12-19T23:56:33Z")
FWIW, I didn’t think that, **Swan**. I’m hopeful that **SteveMB** recognizes **elucidator** ’s second “demand for satisfaction”, as it were, as being sincerely tendered, and responds accordingly before attempting to resume the dialog. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/67 "2006-12-20T00:15:23Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] I’m hopeful that **SteveMB** recognizes **elucidator** ’s second “demand for satisfaction” [/QUOTE] So… pistols at dawn? What _does_ “kill the consumer economy” mean, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/68 "2006-12-20T00:21:22Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I’ve offered a bit more than that, that is what you have seized upon in an effort to portray my opinions as hopelessly compromised by ideology. [/quote] No, I’m afraid you really haven’t. Up until I addressed you, your contributions were: > [@](#): > > Yeah, fuck Greenpeace. They’re only in it for the money. > … > You poor dear. > … > This theme needs development, as many people are not as aware as you of the glaring parallels between AlQ and Greenpeace. > … > Not really, no. There are any number of us better positioned to conduct a defense of Greenpeace, and I am content that it is so. There are fair criticisms to be leveled, and unfair calumny to be shat upon. I am pleased that Greenpeace has, at least, disabused many of us of the notion that whales are ocean going mountains of dog food. > … > It is no longer necessary to mock you. You do quite splendidly on your own. > … > No jury in the world would convict. > … > Good thing the levers of power are in the hands of hard-headed realists. Businessmen, for the most part. Lucky us. Which of these contains your nuanced and carefully observed viewpoint, gained over a span greater than my lifetime? Because from my no doubt all-too-callow perspective, it looks like you came in here determined to achieve no more than hollow sarcasm in an attempt to deflect attention from Greenpeace’s very specific idiocy. Maybe I’m missing some subtle point you were attempting to convey through your one-line snipes, but I am apparently far from alone in this failing. > [@](#): > > Answering an argument not made. Not about big government statism vs the miracles of the free market. Its about feasibility, reliability, and risk. About which we disagree. Really? Then perhaps we might interest you in advancing an argument on the grounds of feasibility, reliability and risk, rather than your increasingly boring pseudo-axiomatic rants that if someone is making money, it must be wrong. Perhaps I am didactically unhanded today - it’s been a long one - but I fail to identify a single actual argument that you have made in the morass of anti-capitalist cliche. > [@](#): > > So it is your opinion that the only dishonest debating here is occuring entirely on one side? Once more you appear to wantonly extrapolate where my plain words will suffice. I believe that the OP has identified a clear area of dishonesty and outright mendacity, which you appear to be at pains to protect. I would like to know _why_ you seem so keen to deflect attention from such blatant fearmongering, and why your methods of doing so are so depressingly oriented around mocking the idea that someone, somewhere, might be making money. > [@](#): > > I had not noticed such admirable even handedness on your part, when and where did you express such? Was it before or after “hysterical” and “ludicrous fearmongering”? Greenpeace’s excesses and exaggerations are immaterial, they prove nothing beyond the rhetorical skills of Greenpeace. If all you wanted to establish was Greenpeace’s failure in the one instance, it would hardly be worth the verbiage. But you seem intent on bagging larger game, and seek to use this as ammunition. The truth of a proposition is not measured by the character of its proponent, that is the very essence of the _ad hominem_ fallacy. Funny; I thought this was a Pit thread attacking a specific piece of Greenpeace propaganda. Were this a GD thread inviting debate on the pros and cons of nuclear policy, then my use of this advert as an argument in favour of nuclear power would indeed be fallacious. As it is, it appears that you are simply lost. I’m glad to be of help; you want a different thread, and should feel free to start one. > [@](#): > > Not even close. For my own two bits, the vulnerability of nuke sites to terrorist attack is definitely a second-tier argument, a comparatively minor point, such that the larger argument will not stand or fall upon its resolution. GrP can be entirely wrong on this point and it will rate nothing more than a shrug, I fear stupidity far more than malice. Then one wonders once more why you feel so motivated to deflect attention from their stupidity/malice. One also wonders how such a large organisation can with mere “stupidity” make such a blatantly fallacious advertisement, which so plainly plays on the popular fears which the Bushes of this world are regularly castigated for exploiting. Why is it, exactly, that when I’m told I should surrender a further freedom because of thar Terr’rists, it is a blatant piece of fearmongering, but when I’m supposed to discount a major source of energy for the same reasons, I’m told it is prudent and ecological reasoning? But I suppose Greenpeace make no money from this advert, and are thus beyond reproach. That’s almost certainly it. > [@](#): > > An invitation to the Mother of All Hijacks. Suffice to say that future historians (knock wood…) will gasp in awe at the wealth we have generated and gasp in horror and dismay at the ways in which we squandered it. How many different kinds of dog food do we need? What sane society would offer tax incentives to promote the purchase of SUV’s? If you’re going to chuck in such a facile “solution” to the problems people are trying to address, I think you should be prepared to be called on it. If you’re not bothered to actually explain what you mean by “kill the consumer economy”, and prefer rather to focus on specific instances of what you consider to be excessive consumption, then I suggest that in future you start at the level at which you’re willing to converse. Grand rhetorical flourishes are all very well, but substance is sometimes expected, I’m afraid to say. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/69 "2006-12-20T02:09:13Z")
First off, there really isn’t any need to list all of my comments up to a given point, anyone who gave a shit could easily find them. Its a needless strain on the hamsters. (Don’t know if you got the memo, but the amphetamine budget has been cut again…) > [@](#): > > …it looks like you came in here determined to achieve no more than hollow sarcasm in an attempt to deflect attention from Greenpeace’s very specific idiocy… Which case you already insist is proven beyond debate. Don’t think so. But even if it were, the threat of terroristic attacks on nuke sites is a “second tier” argument, if it were to be thrown out entirely, its overall effect would be pretty minimal. I’m not at all convinced that a terrorist attack on, say, a chemical refinery would not be more devastating than an attack on a nuke site. Your insinuation as to my motives is simply that, an insinuation. > [@](#): > > …that if someone is making money, it must be wrong… Not at all. Only that when gleaning testimony, I am, just as I said, skeptical of testimony from such persons and institutions who have an economic stake. Would it help you if I type slower? > [@](#): > > …to wantonly extrapolate… This is a chestnut! Consider it stolen. It sounds like an excerpt from a Penthouse Forum, “…she then proceeded to wantonly extrapolate…”. > [@](#): > > …Funny; I thought this was a Pit thread attacking a specific piece of Greenpeace propaganda. Were this a GD thread inviting debate on the pros and cons of nuclear policy, then my use of this advert as an argument in favour of nuclear power would indeed be fallacious… Whoa, there, big horse! Steady up! Cant have it both ways, either you want to expand the thread to include the entire spectrum of my social and political views, or you want to protect the pristine purity of the OP. And if the whole debate is nothing more than the validity and relevence of this one Greenpeace advert, well, then, the game is not worth the candle. As the thread morphed into larger issues, you were not at pains to prevent such, being perfectly happy to make your larger points until the water gets a bit deep and the denizens toothy _then_ you want to protect the OP from “wanton extrapolation”. And one minute later, you’re sniffing about my failure to produce the entire spectrum of my social views. Heads, I lose, tails, I lose double. > [@](#): > > …Then one wonders once more why you feel so motivated to deflect attention from their stupidity/malice… Again, your inference as to my motives. Absent a Certificate of Telepathy, it doesn’t mean shit to a tree. > [@](#): > > …One also wonders how such a large organisation can with mere “stupidity” make such a blatantly fallacious advertisement, which so plainly plays on the popular fears which the Bushes of this world are regularly castigated for exploiting… Yes, they are “regularly castigated”, and for very good reasons. Precisely why such a comparison needs to be made eludes me. Should I criticize Bushiviks less, because Greenpeace makes an ad of questionable accuracy? You gotta be kidding, that be like putting a food poisoning outbreak at a church picnic on a level with the Black Death. > [@](#): > > …Maybe I’m missing some subtle point you were attempting to convey through your one-line snipes, but I am apparently far from alone in this failing… Oh, I rather doubt that. You have sufficient grasp to twist and distort, that is at least adequate to your needs. As in the following example: > [@](#): > > …But I suppose Greenpeace make no money from this advert, and are thus beyond reproach. That’s almost certainly it… “Wanton extrapolation”. I express skepticism of opinions proferred by persons with an economic interest, nothing particularly strange about that, most folks do. But you stick a hose in it and pump it up, blowing up a Japanese condom into a dirigible! Now I’m said to be making the case that if someone is not making money from something, their veracity is unquestionable, they are “beyond reproach”? Honest Native American, that’s what you think I said? > [@](#): > > …If you’re going to chuck in such a facile “solution” to the problems people are trying to address, I think you should be prepared to be called on it… Facile? Bless your heart, its no such thing! Goddam difficult, vexing and complex, much effort expended, little enough to show for it. But once again, just after castigating me for taking lascivious license with the OP, you demand the complete series, _Thoughts of Chairman 'Luc_. Kinda unfair to be double teamed by just one guy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/70 "2006-12-20T02:10:24Z")
[QUOTE=Dead Badger] …Grand rhetorical flourishes are all very well, but substance is sometimes expected, I’m afraid to say. [/QUOTE] I can well understand how you find this daunting. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/71 "2006-12-20T02:13:21Z")
Answer the damn question about what “kill the consumer economy” entails, already. Luci, you got some ‘splainin’ to do. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/72 "2006-12-20T02:28:09Z")
Tell you what, **Brian**. You’ve always given me a fair shake, you really want me to, I 'll do it, just name the Forum. If I bore you to tears, ain’t my damn fault, I warned you. But you got to follow _and comment_! on each and every installment of the _magnum doofus_. Your call. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/73 "2006-12-20T03:42:15Z")
Well, I was hoping for a 100-word (or so) definition of a particular slogan, with a few examples thrown in, not a _commitment_. I’ll just assume it doesn’t mean anything; not even to you. It just sounds sort-of cool and dangerous and edgy and radical. Cry the yellow freedom! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/74 "2006-12-20T03:56:38Z")
Upon reflection…no. This is a bad idea. I’ve been ruminating on this, and its clear to me that I’m not interesting in “starring” in a thread about what I think. And I realise I’m talking about great big slobbering chunks of verbage, just to set the premises for the conclusions to rest upon. Doctors say I only have about thirty-forty more years, sounds extravagant. As well as the energy expended responding to insightful criticism from stimulating minds and responding to snide ankle bites from dipshits (And I will, because I can’t help it, I _always_ gotta hit back…) Perhaps I could carve the Rock of Gibralter into a bust of Eugene V. Debs, but I don’t crave challenges. As to this thread, my criticism of “consumerist” culture need only be so mundane an insight as “If we spent less, we’d have more, and wouldn’t have take risks to get more.” And the risk remains real, only opinions vary as to the extent of that risk. With wise stewardship, it may never be necessary. It is bad to need what you don’t have, better to not need what you don’t have. Best to not need what you _do_ have, leaves some margin. These ends require enormous change, to end consumerism, you have to change consumers. It is a wholly democratic project, working to change minds and habits. It is massive, vexing, and quite possibly Quixotic. But I haven’t anything better to do. (Upon preview, I see I have overestimated friend **Bryan’s** generosity, I shan’t make that mistake again. Above find a sketch, a rough outline, with very broad outlines painted with a fire hose. If it works for you, fine, if not, we’ll no doubt have occassion to discuss these things again…Peace on you.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/75 "2006-12-20T04:08:28Z")
Oh, get the fuck over yourself. I wanted you to clarify a four-word slogan, not tell me your life story. Geez. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/76 "2006-12-20T04:34:27Z")
Its a slogan, dim bulb, not a position paper. The intent is to arouse thought, in the faith that the arousal of thought is sufficient to acomplish one’s end (being: the arousal of thought). Whole books have been written on the consumerist economy, you could go read one. I’d be flattered to think that you hold my authority in such high regard that you’d prefer, but I don’t think that’s it. I think you’re just jerking my chain. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/77 "2006-12-20T04:46:01Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] The intent is to arouse thought [/quote] But if the thought is “hmm, I wonder what _that_ means?”, you’re too elitist to explain? Man, no wonder a Green can’t get elected dogcatcher. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/78 "2006-12-20T04:53:37Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] But if the thought is “hmm, I wonder what _that_ means?”, you’re too elitist to explain? Man, no wonder a Green can’t get elected dogcatcher. [/QUOTE] Hey, not funny. Well ok, maybe it was. For the Record, you are funny but wrong. Cite: [Green Party members holding elected office in the United States](http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html) I know it is not impressive, but at least there are a few. Jim ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/79 "2006-12-20T04:58:42Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] But if the thought is “hmm, I wonder what _that_ means?”, you’re too elitist to explain?.. [/QUOTE] And I gave you a respectful answer, until I realized you weren’t intending a respectful question, you were just counting coup, racking up points. And “elitist”? Howzabout you go suck pimpled donkey balls? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598/80 "2006-12-20T05:00:50Z")
Well, this ankle-biting dipshit is disappointed. Forgive me if I afford your “death to consumerism” theme the same response I grant to all other forms of shallow bumper-sticker sloganeering, like “Subvert the Dominant Paradigm” and “I’d Rather Be Bass Fishing”: a hearty Bronx cheer. I’ve read and admired many of your posts for a long time, **elucidator**. But while your sarcasm undeniably sizzles, the steak turns out to be a pretty hollow slab of gristle sometimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greenpeace-fucking-idiots/384598.md?page=5)