The Green Party boasts of its campaign to re-bulldoze the rights of women.
Legislative action must comply with every demand of entitled men at the expense of those worthless people known as women. That’s the Green Party’s take on this issue.
What exactly is “green” about it?
What gets me is that we could USE an actual green party right now. Climate change is real, and serious. Instead they’re just wasting time mucking about with gender and shitting on women.
Indeed.
Green parties are functionally dead now as far as ecological action goes. They’ve been taken over by various social activists who at the time seemed like natural allies. They’ve actual Green parties is now just branding to persuade people that they’re the good guys and to distract from the often very fringe views and policies they now pursue.
They should drop the “Green” and make it “Bile” instead.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to believe that gender ideology has killed the world – because it’s killed the potential for collective political action that might have saved it.
What is “green” about it?
That it’s hopelessly naïve, I think. The true believers still remain convinced that pursuing this will produce a world of kindness, love, sparkly rainbows and unicorns.
And, as I keep saying, it’s the greatest gift they could possibly have given to climate change deniers etc. The latter are already going out of their way to portray environmentalists in general, as well as anyone who simply accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, as crazy ideologues, and the Green party is handing them all the free ammunition they could ever ask for.
Green Party Candidate; “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and urgent.”
Climate Change Denier: “Say the people who think Eddie Izzard is a woman”
Crowd: LOL!
Environmetal protection as a political cause developed traction through appeal to the human instincts for purity and sacralization. Their entrenchment within the psychology of the movement as it burgeoned through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s left it a sitting duck for dysfunctional absolutist thinking and purity spirals. Germans had the poltical wit and experience to diagnose the problem with the Realo/Fundi split, but even they were not able to solve it.
Nailed it.
Alan Peakall
This is a point I keep returning to: It is perfectly possible to reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. It might be tempting to think that the wrongness of the reasons doesn’t matter as long as people end up accepting the right facts and supporting the right causes. The problem with that intuition is that bad reasons rarely, if ever, have just one effect. The same kind of wrong reasons that gave us Jainism (supposedly a religion of total pacifism) also gave us Jihadism*. Aversion to technology, or anything perceived as unnatural, chemical**, artificial, manufactured, synthetic, or man-made, may seem benign enough when it leads people to reject fossil fuels (hardly unnatural, admittedly), not so much when it leads them to reject vaccines.
* Even if the wrong reasons lead you to embrace the most harmless and (in terms of consequences) benign conclusions imaginable it will be absolutely no thanks to you as long as the only thing keeping you from crashing planes into buildings or blowing yourself up on a bus is that the coin-toss of faith happened to come up heads rather than tails.
** I still haven managed to get any of these people to provide an example of a non-chemical substance. I guess technically dark matter qualifies, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they have in mind.
The latter are already going out of their way to portray environmentalists in general, as well as anyone who simply accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, as crazy ideologues
In my work as an environmental scientist, I have constantly had to explain to people that I am an environmental scientist and that it’s not the same thing as an environmental activist. When I got my Ph.D., the school had some of both types, and you could usually tell the difference by the bumper sticker slogans the activists stuck all over their stuff, and by the fact that they would roll their eyes a lot whenever we talked about science as science. Many of them were also anti-vaxxers, because, well, chemicals, right? They were also the youngsters; those of us who grew up in the age where we still taught real science tended to roll our eyes at them.
I still haven’t managed to get any of these people to provide an example of a non-chemical substance
Ah, yes. CHEMICALS. (Sorry, but it has to be screamed to get the point across.) Chemicals bad; natural good. Right? No, of course not. Water is a chemical, as I reminded my students. If they didn’t back down for that, I would tell them we are entirely made of chemicals, and if they want to get rid of chemicals in the environment, that would include humans, too.
With all this disdain for science, I wonder where they got their information about environmental issues.
Bjarte Foshaug on June 5:
I still haven managed to get any of these people to provide an example of a non-chemical substance. I guess technically dark matter qualifies, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they have in mind.
Elements would be non-chemical substances (technically, perhaps). But those are probably not what they have in mind, either.
iknklast on June 5:
Ah, yes. CHEMICALS. (Sorry, but it has to be screamed to get the point across.) Chemicals bad; natural good. Right? No, of course not. Water is a chemical, as I reminded my students. If they didn’t back down for that, I would tell them we are entirely made of chemicals, and if they want to get rid of chemicals in the environment, that would include humans, too.
And there’s all the natural chemicals that are bad, some quite nasty – venoms, poisons, toxins.
Leave a Reply