Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Rushtar]

It doesn't have to be primitivism or ascetism, it could be about changing nonrenewables energies to renewables energies. Instead of having a house which is powered by butane gas, you can power it with solar energy. Instead of picking a petroleum based bus, picking one propulsed by natural gas. Sooner or later we will have to change, or until the non-renewable energy are gone, which damages environment.

[Bombadil]

Not really, using mass consumer goods is slightly different from structuring an entire system, with large amounts of lobbying money and corruption of politics, to serve a few - as witnessed by vastly increasing disparity of wealth.

I specifically said that one could pursue products from other companies believed to be more ethical.
Starbucks and Apple are not ethical companies.

They are completely a part of the corporatist culture the OWS movement was supposed to protest. It'd be like dressing up as Eichmann at the Mossad Christmas ball.

Possibly.. but the point was that it wasn't a reason to dismiss the protestors as having no point. Beyond that, it was a statement so parroted by Conservatives in the UK that it was clearly a designed message to be repeated.

[Imperializt Russia]

I specifically said that one could pursue products from other companies believed to be more ethical.
Starbucks and Apple are not ethical companies.

They are completely a part of the corporatist culture the OWS movement was supposed to protest. It'd be like dressing up as Eichmann at the Mossad Christmas ball.

Possibly.. but the point was that it wasn't a reason to dismiss the protestors as having no point. Beyond that, it was a statement so parroted by Conservatives in the UK that it was clearly a designed message to be repeated.

Is the phrase "practice what you preach" lost on you, or something?

[Aurea]

I think the OP makes a good point: the best way to change a system is by being part of it. The Green Party of many countries people will say is a hypocrite but it is changing things from the inside. Sometimes as part of the government of a country and sometimes less directly thorugh public pressures.

The environmentalists will have to use fossil fuels because the world we all live in needs them. Environmentalists can't cicle everywhere!? But environmentalists will do more to counteract it. Like they will recicle more or they will invest in tree planting schemes or will extra insulate their homes and be careful of energy use or drive electric cars, &c.

If we all lived like the way environmentalists suggested, then we would live in a greener world.

[Bombadil]

Possibly.. but the point was that it wasn't a reason to dismiss the protestors as having no point. Beyond that, it was a statement so parroted by Conservatives in the UK that it was clearly a designed message to be repeated.

Is the phrase "practice what you preach" lost on you, or something?

Sure.. but then my point is about using ad hominem attacks to detract from the issue - even beyond that, I'm not sure the whole Starbucks story wasn't something inflated by detractors and media against Occupy in London as opposed to actual reality on the ground.

As an excerpt from the critics against the NY protests.. given I'm very lightly searching.. not an exact comparison but..

So, look, a lot of the kids, if you will, “bogart” — which means to borrow or use even wireless signals of the Starbucks or the Paneras that are around the corners which is, I guess, at best, hypocritical and maybe, at worst, criminal!”

With this baseless insinuation, Martin completely lost whatever argument he was making by not doing his research. First of all, there are no Panera Breads on the island of Manhattan and Martin’s completely unfounded allegation that the Occupy Wall Street protestors were stealing wi-fi is a borderline slanderous accusation. A quick Google search on his part would’ve shown that there is, in fact, free wireless internet on site provided by Isaac Wilder, a former Grinnell student who runs The Free Network Foundation, an organization “devoted to providing free wireless service,” according to a report by New York Magazine‘s Tim Murphy.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/neil-cavuto- ... e-iphones/

Whether wireless or coffee or iPhones, these same two names of Starbucks and Apple kept coming up in talking points in both the US and the UK..

During the debate, the home secretary's characterisation of the protesters was challenged by other members of the panel.

She said: "These are anti-capitalist protesters but we have seen photos of them drinking their Starbucks coffee and using their Mac computers."

..which leads me to believe it was a designed message.

Some people drank Starbucks, some people used phones.. it's not an argument against the issues raised.

[Costa Fierro]

This is like the critic of Occupy in London who noted that they'd been seen drinking Starbucks, like you can't decry the worst excesses of capitalism AND enjoy a coffee at the same time.

It's not all a zero-sum game.

I found the people ranting on about the evils of capitalism on social media amusing, especially if it came "via iPhone". Because nothing says a clean conscious like using a phone made in China by wage slaves to rant on about the evils of capitalism.

It actually reminds me of those smug people who drive a hybrid and claim it's for environmental reasons. "But it's so cheap to run, it produces less greenhouse gases...."

Yeah, and the lithium used in the batteries was mined in Canada, shipped to China for refining and then shipped to Japan to be put into the battery (with acid) and slotted in that stupid Prius.

[Dyakovo]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

Or being an environmentalist and flying everywhere on private jets...

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Like they will recicle more or they will invest in tree planting schemes or will extra insulate their homes and be careful of energy use or drive electric cars, &c.

A huge number of these are still inaccessible to plenty among the emerging Global South middle class...

[Imperializt Russia]

Is the phrase "practice what you preach" lost on you, or something?

Sure.. but then my point is about using ad hominem attacks to detract from the issue - even beyond that, I'm not sure the whole Starbucks story wasn't something inflated by detractors and media against Occupy in London as opposed to actual reality on the ground.

An accusation of hypocrisy of a number of OWS protesters is not an "ad hominem" attack.
Insinuating they were stealing wi-fi is slanderous, but that is not "ad hominem" either.

Calling them degenerate sponging fucks for doing so is an ad hominem attack (especially when they didn't), but you shouldn't need me or anyone else to tell you that.

[Bombadil]

Sure.. but then my point is about using ad hominem attacks to detract from the issue - even beyond that, I'm not sure the whole Starbucks story wasn't something inflated by detractors and media against Occupy in London as opposed to actual reality on the ground.

An accusation of hypocrisy of a number of OWS protesters is not an "ad hominem" attack.

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument.

[Imperializt Russia]

An accusation of hypocrisy of a number of OWS protesters is not an "ad hominem" attack.

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument.

The position may be valid (I certainly believe it is), but the conduct is inconsistent with it.
I don't understand the Tu Quoque "fallacy" on this basis.

A person who makes a claim and acts inconsistently with that claim makes their own claim invalid, but not the claim itself.
This is why I disapprove of naming fallacies and have stopped doing so myself. It just turns into Fallacious Top Trumps, trying to shut down a criticism because it vaguely matches a fallacy as listed on Wikipedia or an Internet Argument Reference Database.

Hypocrisy is a valid criticism of a person making a point, if demonstrated.

[Nortrom]

It makes no sense. With the same logic, one can't be a socialist unless if they solely contribute to a socialist economy.

[Antihomophobia]

It makes no sense. With the same logic, one can't be a socialist unless if they solely contribute to a socialist economy.

Exactly. This whole world is encompassed by capitalist economies. I suspect there is not even a single socialist country existing that is autarkic or trades only with other socialist states. When you shop, you sponsor capitalism because you have no choice to begin with. Even communes have to get funded monetarily to survive. Capitalism is everywhere and there's no stopping it before an imminent resource crisis.

Regarding environmentalism, can you imagine how hard avoiding plastics is when shopping for food?

[Intelectual Atheists]

Let's chop down trees for paper we can use to make a poster telling people not to chop down trees!

[Imperializt Russia]

It makes no sense. With the same logic, one can't be a socialist unless if they solely contribute to a socialist economy.

I see your point but don't believe it to be entirely equivalent.

"Socialist" has become a political and economic term so broad that some people in certain countries could well identify as acting in a (limited) socialist manner, especially with mechanisms such as "state socialism".

A person who identifies as a socialist votes for parties with socialist or progressive left-wing leanings and tries to push to that side.
Occupy Wall Street was not doing that.

[Socialist Czechia]

Not just hypocrites. Everyone who's against nuclear power plants just because they are nuclear, or against Genetically modified stuff just because it's genetically modified, is ignorant fanatic.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Yes. A lot of alternative fossil fuels offer (for some, significantly) reduced pollution and/or are practically renewable (e.g. biofuels) . It's not a fundamental change, but it is something. Ideally in the future we will only use truly renewable energy, with nuclear power (MSR, breeder reactors, thorium fuel etc.) as an intermediate step, and fossil fuels only being used "for the sake of it" (e.g. sports/racing cars, etc.)

[Imperializt Russia]

Not just hypocrites. Everyone who's against nuclear power plants just because they are nuclear, or against Genetically modified stuff just because it's genetically modified, is ignorant fanatic hasn't read any scientific literature.

Fixed.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Not just hypocrites. Everyone who's against nuclear power plants just because they are nuclear, or against Genetically modified stuff just because it's genetically modified, is ignorant fanatic.

so much this

[The Liberated Territories]

Reminds me of a guy who went around screaming about the "ebil corporashuns" while wearing a coca-cola t-shirt.

If you are going to fight corporatism, don't advertise for one!

[Socialist Czechia]

Too bad enviromentalist fools are like plague amongst (mostly leftist) parties all over Europe. I am inside (probably) last european leftist party present in national parliament, totally against eco-fanatics and for nuclear power plants
Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

[Antihomophobia]

Too bad enviromentalist fools are like plague amongst (mostly leftist) parties all over Europe. I am inside (probably) last european leftist party present in national parliament, totally against eco-fanatics and for nuclear power plants
Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

I could say the same about pro-Europeanism in left-wing parties. Thankfully that trait isn't too prominent among the left, only in social democrats and young people. Old people and communists tend to be more to my liking due to being eurosceptic or at the very least eurorealist.

I am green and don't oppose establishing nuclear power plants where they're actually stable and sustainable over time. I'd prefer no part of my country to be Fukushima'd to a glowing pile of goo. Fact is nuclear power is still the most efficient way of producing electricity and I hope greens'd get this.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

This. What's the merit of stuff that people don't want to be accessible and easily navigable to the point more people can adapt to their lifestyles?

It's ridiculous that producing organic food is actually less expensive, but they sell it by thrice, fourfold the price of stuff that isn't labeled as such.

Green washing is bad.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Too bad enviromentalist fools are like plague amongst (mostly leftist) parties all over Europe. I am inside (probably) last european leftist party present in national parliament, totally against eco-fanatics and for nuclear power plants
Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

the last part. lolwut.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Besides, eco-stuff mostly actually helps capitalist pigs to further exploit working class just look on expensive technologies in cars, making cars unnecessarily expensive or whole, so called "Renewable energy" - just way how to make states and it's people more poor, while international companies are more rich.

This. What's the merit of stuff that people don't want to be accessible and easily navigable to the point more people can adapt to their lifestyles?

Manufacturers are not charities. They aren't just going to take one for the team and offer relatively new, unconventional and currently expensive technologies for the price of the old bangers. It's just not how it works. What he's doing is akin to screaming "EVIL CAPITALISM!!!!111" at the IT manufacturers back in the day because you had to pay shitloads of $$$ per unit of storage.

It's ridiculous that producing organic food is actually less expensive, but they sell it by thrice, fourfold the price of stuff that isn't labeled as such.

Green washing is bad.

Source.