To save the environment you must destroy it.

[Wolfbeckett]

ALF and ELF are terrorists?

I think any organization that publicly supports and encourages the firebombing of civilian buildings is pretty much a terrorist organization by definition, yes.

 

[James Stuart]

Am I the only one thinking of ALF the serial and ELF as in the mythological creature?

Nope. I have absolutely no idea who they are, and I choose not to find out. It's more fun imagining a cat-eating alien and Will Ferrell effing shiznat up to save the environment. There's an Adam Mckay movie in there somewhere.

 

[JohnRM]

Do you also kill ten dogs every time PETA splashes paint on some woman's fur coat?

No, but I could start. It's not a bad idea.

 

[James Stuart]

No, but I could start. It's not a bad idea.

It won't work. PETA actually wants pet dogs dead. Kill turtles.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Yeah PETA is anti-pet, they'd probably see it as a net gain in the long term. You have to kill wild animals.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think any organization that publicly supports and encourages the firebombing of civilian buildings is pretty much a terrorist organization by definition, yes.

That depends on whether the bombings are intended to cause "terror", surely? If it's intended to make the production and sale of a particular commodity or even research program uneconomic, that would come under the heading of "sabotage".

If ElMach is right, members of the organisation or claiming to act in its name have also carried out arson attacks against researchers, which would fall pretty squarely under the heading of "terrorism", although with loose organisations like ALF and ELF there's always the question of how far individual actions reflect organisation-wide policy. (Although we could probably say that a failure to condemn such attacks represents tacit approval.) But people and commodities really aren't the same thing.

 

[kramerfan86]

Their apology comes off as such a non-apology to me. "oh we're sorry you were offended by our message of hope". if you spend a chunk of an apology tooting your own horn you arent really apologizing in my eyes. What a bunch of jerkoffs (not destroying the environment though)

Although I do find a bit of irony in the fact they likely flew half way across the world and drove likely hundreds of miles to lay down some banners for a picture they could have photoshopped from the comfort of their homes. Sort of environmentally gluttonous of them.

 

[JollyRoger]

To save the world, you must save the cheerleader.

 

[El_Machinae]

Although I do find a bit of irony in the fact they likely flew half way across the world and drove likely hundreds of miles to lay down some banners for a picture they could have photoshopped from the comfort of their homes. Sort of environmentally gluttonous of them.

This might be a diversion of the thread, but I thought I should address this. This is a common criticism, and least its vibe is.

They're accused of being hypocritical, or gluttonous, etc. But it's unfair. You don't hear the people who object who refrain from doing this. I tried to be part of a rally regarding GHGs in my area. And both Green Party members and our opponents were wringing their hands, bemoaning the gas we burned to get to the rally.

But, no one gives two craps about the Green Party member who stayed home that day, worried about tailpipe emissions. No one counts them. No one cares what they think.

Now, if we intentionally modified our cars to roll coal and then showed up to the rally, that would be another thing. But it wasn't. The only way to get our political voice heard competitively is to burn oil as judiciously as we can. It's not a fair fight. The CEO of Exxon can take his Private Airliner to these meetings, but if I take an economy-class flight with nearly no luggage (to avoid weighing down the plane more than I needed to), I'm a hypocrit. And, somehow, the CEO of Exxon gets extra points in the debate if I even showed up ...

 

[aelf]

As I've said before on this forum, there's no winning the PR war. All you have to do is make one minor mistake and suddenly people have "lost all respect" (actual quotes from elsewhere) for you and your cause.

Forget the opinion of the fickle and ignorant public. Confrontation is the only path for activism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

people and commodities really aren't the same thing.

Well, looks like Traitorfish managed to escape the modern capitalist economy afterall.

 

[kramerfan86]

This might be a diversion of the thread, but I thought I should address this. This is a common criticism, and least its vibe is.

They're accused of being hypocritical, or gluttonous, etc. But it's unfair. You don't hear the people who object who refrain from doing this. I tried to be part of a rally regarding GHGs in my area. And both Green Party members and our opponents were wringing their hands, bemoaning the gas we burned to get to the rally.

But, no one gives two craps about the Green Party member who stayed home that day, worried about tailpipe emissions. No one counts them. No one cares what they think.

Now, if we intentionally modified our cars to roll coal and then showed up to the rally, that would be another thing. But it wasn't. The only way to get our political voice heard competitively is to burn oil as judiciously as we can. It's not a fair fight. The CEO of Exxon can take his Private Airliner to these meetings, but if I take an economy-class flight with nearly no luggage (to avoid weighing down the plane more than I needed to), I'm a hypocrit. And, somehow, the CEO of Exxon gets extra points in the debate if I even showed up ...

And I think that is a fair argument normally, but in this case pretty clearly the end goal was to get a picture that they could slap on social media. That could literally be accomplished from anywhere as the end result looks photoshopped anyways. You cant do a protest or a debate from home so the argument works there, this little stunt though I feel is a bit different.

 

[El_Machinae]

Isn't a photoshopped image less politically valuable than a real image for the same reason a counterfeit Mona Lisa is less valuable than the original?

Which slacktivists are going to share a photoshopped image?

[This specific choice of sites, obviously, was dumb. But, I think the value of coordinated statements is pretty high relative to the photoshop]

 

[kramerfan86]

Isn't a photoshopped image less politically valuable than a real image for the same reason a counterfeit Mona Lisa is less valuable than the original?

Which slacktivists are going to share a photoshopped image?

[This specific choice of sites, obviously, was dumb. But, I think the value of coordinated statements is pretty high relative to the photoshop]

is your average slacktivist actually going to know the difference? They are a slackivist for a reason.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure! They pride themselves on being sufficiently non-lazy that if you make a real photo, they just might share it!

And, honestly, this is a really important situation that's fighting a lot of selfish apathy. It needs whatever political momentum it can get. The site choice was bad, but there needs way more momentum built than photoshopping stuff at home. Idiocy of the site choice aside, these stunts inevitably get more press than photoshopped variants.

If you google "global warming protest banner", you'll see that most of them are real photos. The fact that they're real improves their perceived value.

 

[Tee Kay]

Now, if we intentionally modified our cars to roll coal and then showed up to the rally, that would be another thing. But it wasn't. The only way to get our political voice heard competitively is to burn oil as judiciously as we can. It's not a fair fight. The CEO of Exxon can take his Private Airliner to these meetings, but if I take an economy-class flight with nearly no luggage (to avoid weighing down the plane more than I needed to), I'm a hypocrit. And, somehow, the CEO of Exxon gets extra points in the debate if I even showed up ...

It's been my opinion for a while now that a big own goal of environmentalists generally was - and unfortunately still is - an overemphasis on individual action. Turn off your lights, ride a bike, save the world, that sort of thing. And when we finally grasp that, no, little actions don't make a big difference, big actions do, it becomes problematic because acting big a lot more polluting means to achieve green ends.

So whenever I see an Australian Greens senator talk about, say, the virtues of bicycles, or talk up Earth Hour, I cringe. They should use that oxygen talking big things, electric cars and renewables and agricultural reform.

Forget the opinion of the fickle and ignorant public. Confrontation is the only path for activism.

Yes. What a chance we've got, a few penniless proles versus literally everyone else and literally all of the money.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The idiocy of the stunt is just staggering, I just wonder who thought this would be a good idea.

Destroy ? = No
Molest more like it.

 

[James Stuart]

Oops, wrong thread, sorry.