Sure, in the sense that the homeless guy raving about the CIA stealing his thoughts is on the lunatic side of rabid civil libertarianism. Civil libertarians worry about abuse of government power, crazy homeless guy worries about abuse of government power, it’s all just different degrees of the same thing, right?
To me, the OP reads like a ham-handed attempt to make the environmental movement look bad, i.e. if it gets out of hand this is what we’ll end up with. Dumb.
Prodominatly
Every interest group has their lunatic fringe elements, from gun rights to environmentalists to civil rights to whatever. The OP was pointing out a funny one with an environmentalists slant. If you want to take that as an attempt to indict the entire movement, so be it, but you have to admit that it is something you are reading into the OP’s motives, because nothing in his wording is doing what you or Dio claim.
This woman is not part of even a fringe movement. Her illness has nothing to do with environmentalism. She is not on the extreme fringe of a movement. She’s just a person who is mentally ill indepenent of any movement.
If someone thinks that abortion doctors are aliens in disguise, that’s not an extension of the pro-life movement, even at it’s most extreme fringe.
I took a class about about eight years ago about environmental stuff. Can’t remember the exact name. Anyway, our text book defined the differences between and among conservationists, environmentalists, and a couple other ists. It was pretty clear environmentalists are the extreme weirdoes who go beyond tree hugging, and would prefer most humans kill themselves so the rest can go back to living in loin-clothes and subsisting on fairy blossoms.
I pay no mind to environmentalists, and correct friends of mine who describe themselves as environmentalists. “Are you sure you’re an environmentalist, or you just don’t want to fuck the planet too much, because that’s what most of us agree on?”
Politically speaking, the right defines anybody who expresses any concern at all for natural environments, deforestation or wildlife as “environmental extremists.”
I know you took a class, but all this is complete horseshit. There are no formalized definitions for any of this stuff.
She’s not an environmentalist, she’s a conspiracy theorist who is very out of touch with reality. Anyone who passed grade 5 science should know how rainbows occur.
You think there’s no definition for “conservationist, preservationist, and environmentalist?” You think they’re all synonyms? There may be some overlap, but you’ll never catch me calling myself an environmentalist. It’s like saying I’m for “white pride” while trying to avoid the nasty connotations I know just came to mind to everyone who just read that.
Whether or not there are formal definitions distinguishing those labels, I don’t know anyone who assigns them the meanings you do. And I know quite a few non-crazy self-described environmentalists, including myself.
If this person was the president of their local chapter of the Sierra Club, I’d agree with you. However, there’s no evidence that this person is part of any organized environmental group. I don’t consider the ravings of someone who is obviously mentally ill to make them automatically part of a given movement solely because the topic of their rant is on environmental damage.
Honestly, do you think that a crazy person ranting about how we should have lower taxes because the government just gives all our money to the Jews is part of the fiscal conservatism movement? What’s the point of finding someone like that and saying “Look at this crazy fiscal conservative!” to a group containing many normal, non-crazy fiscal conservatives?
Actually, it’s more like never calling yourself a caucasian, because of all the nasty connotations. Meanwhile, everyone you say this to is scratching their heads, trying to figure out what the hell you’re talking about.
This might be one of the more ignorant things I have ever seen on the dope. (Not so much in general media, but on the dope at least.)
If your class taught such things that class was grievously wrong. I am an Environmentalist. I will be spending this weekend helping to hold an Environmental Festival in a small inner city area. I know hundreds of environmentalists from friends that attended my wedding to Pete Seeger. We all consider ourselves environmentalists and none fit your crazed definition.
You know what levdrakon, fuck you and your fucked up definition that you have to realize is incredibly wrong and describes a small handful of nutters. I hope your environmentalists friends take the time to disabuse you of your ignorance as it is pure garbage. Have you perhaps thought of checking for other sources besides a book you don’t even remember the name of? How stupid are you anyway?
No. There are no formalized definitions for any of those terms. I’ve been working and studying in the environmental field since the 80’s. I’ve held jobs in the private sector, universities, NGO’s, and state and government service. I read widely and deeply in this field, ranging from mass-market popular books to extremely technical, peer-reviewed literature. I’m currently 3 years into my PhD in molecular genetics, focusing on the conservation of endemic and isolated plant populations. I live and breathe this stuff, and I have never heard any formal, widely accepted definition of any of those terms, and frankly, trying to peg them down seems like a frivolous and silly exercise.
Thanks for proving my wisdom on where to place this thread Giraffe. Please, continue with your diatribe against what I didn’t say. You and Dio got a good core group, try and drag in a few more people and maybe you can get the whole Greek chorus thing going.
I’m not sure what the Jews have to do with anything, but in general I would classify such a person exactly as I did the person in the OP: Someone on the lunatic fringe of rabid fiscal conservatism, and I say that as a fiscal conservative. The key words here are “lunatic” and “rabid”. By using those two words to describe this person I am differentiating between what she believes and more traditional, mainstream environmentalism. But please, don’t let the facts get in the way of your ire. Froth on, my good man.
Oh, and re: the OP, it’s foolish to try to paint this woman as an “environmentalist” (and the OP didn’t. Where the fuck is your sense of humor, Dopers?). She’s crazy as a shithouse rat, and as dumb as a boot. She doesn’t have the brains to have an informed opinion either way. It’s sad, but it’s also kinda darkly hilarious.
Oh, wow. Wiki & answers.com.
I bow to you.
You even read your own links, fuck-wit? “Environmentalists frequently speak of a planet or place faced with a plethora of grave and urgent threats; often associated with unbridled consumption, economic growth, materialism, insensitive development, and booming human numbers.” What would be their solution?
“Though opinions vary, environmentalism may be seen as a spectrum; from the radical to the reformist.”
“Those at the former end tend to believe that humanity cannot achieve harmony with the natural world without radical adjustments to our worldview, including seeing ourselves as merely one species among many, rather than the pinnacle of creation with the right to wantonly destroy the environment to meet our ends. This group believes that nothing short of a complete overhaul of our political, economic and industrial systems is required to achieve a sustainable society. In this, environmentalism has its roots in a deeper radical, idealist, dissenting tradition in Western civilization.”
“Free-market environmentalists believe that environmental stewardship begins with a respect for private property, and that the natural tendency is to reject contamination of one’s environment by expulsion of aggressors. Nonetheless, the drive of many reform environmentalists probably lies in heartfelt views quite sympathetic to those of the radicals, albeit more inclined to a kind of pragmatism.” Yeah, quite sympathetic to the radicals.
“Environmental preservation, chiefly in the United States, is viewed as the strict setting aside of natural resources to prevent damage caused by contact with humans or by certain human activities, such as logging, mining, hunting, and fishing. It is different from conservation; conservation allows for some degree of industrial development, albeit it within sustainable limits.” It says it right there, dumb-ass. There’s a difference between environmentalism and conservation, you incredible moron.
Did you bother to read the part about Dark, light, and Bright greens? “The dark green brand of environmentalism is associated with ideas of Deep Ecology, Post-materialism, Holism, the Gaia Theory of James Lovelock and the work of Fritjof Capra.”
“More radical organizations, such as Greenpeace, Earth First!, and the Earth Liberation Front, have more directly opposed actions they regard as environmentally harmful. While Greenpeace is devoted to nonviolent confrontation as a means of bearing witness to environmental wrongs and bringing issues into the public realm for debate, the underground Earth Liberation Front engages in the clandestine destruction of property, the release of caged or penned animals, and other criminal acts.”
So do you claim that Greenpeace & the Sierra club members are not environmentalists. Because you whole long useless post I quoted in full, does not support the ignorance of your earlier post. You know, the one base on the book you don’t remember the name of.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Thanks for proving my wisdom on where to place this thread Giraffe. Please, continue with your diatribe against what I didn’t say. You and Dio got a good core group, try and drag in a few more people and maybe you can get the whole Greek chorus thing going.
This one’s yours, firearm enthusiasts!
Look how clever I am! I should change my name to ClevererDave!
-Joe
There is no debate on the internet. There are only people seeking catharsis behind anonymity.
Congratulations, you’ve just proved that there’s such a thing as an extremist enviromentalist. Which would be doubly impressive if anyone had argued against their existence. What you’ve failed to demonstrate is your original claim: that “enviromentalist” and “extremist” are synonymous.