Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists

[FirstAscent]

Fact: I know more about this stuff than you do.

If you did, you wouldn't be on my ignore list FirstAscent.

Please, go back to ignoring me, so you can remain ignorant.

I never understood the mentality of those who choose to ignore, brag about it, but can't seem to actually stick to their claim.

[westkybitcoins]

Remember, there are very powerful forces at work out there to make environmental activists look like loonies and eccentrics in order to discredit them.  It doesn't surprise me that the mainstream look down on them having been appeased into non-action by propaganda.  If you go to such an event you'll probably be impressed and forever changed by how well educated and informed the activists are, and by how the media have falsely portrayed them.

I think you misunderstand completely why people tend to dislike environmental activists.

There may be mainstream media propaganda against such folks. I know many who would argue the opposite. But any influence the media has over the issue pales in comparison to simply (1) knowing what the stereotype of an environmentalist is (save trees, save animals, don't hunt, don't burn, etc.) and (2) seeing some of the more outrageous-looking activities of activists. By outrageous-looking, I'm not talking about ELF. I'm talking about folks chaining themselves to trees and such. Believe me, going to the events to try to understand activists stands just as good a chance of making the situation worse, should many people realize that their beliefs about environmental activists are pretty reasonably accurate. Why? Because the motives of the activists just flat don't matter to most. It's their actions, and the immediate impact those actions have on others (and the uncaring way such actions are perceived as being done) that matter.

People can get on board with clean air and water. When you start stepping on their lives to "save the planet" from alleged ills that they're expected to take university-level classes to fully understand (never mind prove,) they're not exactly going to be very welcoming.

In addition, the mindset that animal rights or environmental care (again, let's exclude actual overt pollution, here) trumps individual liberties and property rights is a totally alien one to a broad spectrum of society, at least in the U.S. So when someone sees folks attempting to interfere with their normal activities--logging, mining, developing land, any of a number of "environmentally-impacting" jobs--they'll first wonder what such people are smoking. But that quickly turns to rage when they see these (to their mind) lunatics actually impacting their legitimate livelihood and/or desires. Were such confrontations to start with a conversation, there would probably be no change, but at least a first step would be made, with further steps to come later. And the deep-seated backlash of people who feel you're throwing slanted theories and alien emotions at them while trying to coerce them to act upon those theories and emotions could be avoided.

Westkybitcoins,

It's not clear to me that you really have a deep understanding of environmentalism. Let's review some of your opinions, and get educated.

<snip>

No.

I'm speaking to matt608 of the opinions of people who think of environmental activists as kooks. Continuing to act in a manner that disregards their rights, property and views while claiming an educated high ground is only going to perpetuate, or worsen, their the activists' standing in society.

[FirstAscent]

Remember, there are very powerful forces at work out there to make environmental activists look like loonies and eccentrics in order to discredit them.  It doesn't surprise me that the mainstream look down on them having been appeased into non-action by propaganda.  If you go to such an event you'll probably be impressed and forever changed by how well educated and informed the activists are, and by how the media have falsely portrayed them.

I think you misunderstand completely why people tend to dislike environmental activists.

There may be mainstream media propaganda against such folks. I know many who would argue the opposite. But any influence the media has over the issue pales in comparison to simply (1) knowing what the stereotype of an environmentalist is (save trees, save animals, don't hunt, don't burn, etc.) and (2) seeing some of the more outrageous-looking activities of activists. By outrageous-looking, I'm not talking about ELF. I'm talking about folks chaining themselves to trees and such. Believe me, going to the events to try to understand activists stands just as good a chance of making the situation worse, should many people realize that their beliefs about environmental activists are pretty reasonably accurate. Why? Because the motives of the activists just flat don't matter to most. It's their actions, and the immediate impact those actions have on others (and the uncaring way such actions are perceived as being done) that matter.

People can get on board with clean air and water. When you start stepping on their lives to "save the planet" from alleged ills that they're expected to take university-level classes to fully understand (never mind prove,) they're not exactly going to be very welcoming.

In addition, the mindset that animal rights or environmental care (again, let's exclude actual overt pollution, here) trumps individual liberties and property rights is a totally alien one to a broad spectrum of society, at least in the U.S. So when someone sees folks attempting to interfere with their normal activities--logging, mining, developing land, any of a number of "environmentally-impacting" jobs--they'll first wonder what such people are smoking. But that quickly turns to rage when they see these (to their mind) lunatics actually impacting their legitimate livelihood and/or desires. Were such confrontations to start with a conversation, there would probably be no change, but at least a first step would be made, with further steps to come later. And the deep-seated backlash of people who feel you're throwing slanted theories and alien emotions at them while trying to coerce them to act upon those theories and emotions could be avoided.

Westkybitcoins,

It's not clear to me that you really have a deep understanding of environmentalism. Let's review some of your opinions, and get educated.

<snip>

No.

I'm speaking to matt608 of the opinions of people who think of environmental activists as kooks. Continuing to act in a manner that disregards their rights, property and views while claiming an educated high ground is only going to perpetuate, or worsen, their the activists' standing in society.

Activism is a role played by a certain group of people. It has negative and positive effects. But look at the title of the thread. It says 'environmentalists', not activists. It's important to understand the difference, and who and what environmentalists are. They're not just the conscious person who recycles bottles and cans and drives a Prius. And they're not just activists. Those two groups are the least important groups of environmentalists. The third group are those people who have a large set of knowledge on the subject of the environment. They may be scientists, professors, speakers, philanthropists, lobbyists, executives of conservation organizations, or, retired activists, now engaging in real projects, such as the rewilding of North America using GIS databases. They are field research specialists, urban planners, entomologists, climate scientists, architects, ecologists, writers, botanists, hydroponics researchers, and so on. They are people doing herd studies in Africa, people reintroducing the wolf into Yellowstone, researchers studying trophic cascades in the northwest, people engaging in coral reef studies, educated CEOs of particular clothing companies, researchers of island biogeography, individuals developing methods for sustainable salmon fishing, documentary filmmakers...

[westkybitcoins]

Remember, there are very powerful forces at work out there to make environmental activists look like loonies and eccentrics in order to discredit them.  It doesn't surprise me that the mainstream look down on them having been appeased into non-action by propaganda.  If you go to such an event you'll probably be impressed and forever changed by how well educated and informed the activists are, and by how the media have falsely portrayed them.

I think you misunderstand completely why people tend to dislike environmental activists.

There may be mainstream media propaganda against such folks. I know many who would argue the opposite. But any influence the media has over the issue pales in comparison to simply (1) knowing what the stereotype of an environmentalist is (save trees, save animals, don't hunt, don't burn, etc.) and (2) seeing some of the more outrageous-looking activities of activists. By outrageous-looking, I'm not talking about ELF. I'm talking about folks chaining themselves to trees and such. Believe me, going to the events to try to understand activists stands just as good a chance of making the situation worse, should many people realize that their beliefs about environmental activists are pretty reasonably accurate. Why? Because the motives of the activists just flat don't matter to most. It's their actions, and the immediate impact those actions have on others (and the uncaring way such actions are perceived as being done) that matter.

People can get on board with clean air and water. When you start stepping on their lives to "save the planet" from alleged ills that they're expected to take university-level classes to fully understand (never mind prove,) they're not exactly going to be very welcoming.

In addition, the mindset that animal rights or environmental care (again, let's exclude actual overt pollution, here) trumps individual liberties and property rights is a totally alien one to a broad spectrum of society, at least in the U.S. So when someone sees folks attempting to interfere with their normal activities--logging, mining, developing land, any of a number of "environmentally-impacting" jobs--they'll first wonder what such people are smoking. But that quickly turns to rage when they see these (to their mind) lunatics actually impacting their legitimate livelihood and/or desires. Were such confrontations to start with a conversation, there would probably be no change, but at least a first step would be made, with further steps to come later. And the deep-seated backlash of people who feel you're throwing slanted theories and alien emotions at them while trying to coerce them to act upon those theories and emotions could be avoided.

Westkybitcoins,

It's not clear to me that you really have a deep understanding of environmentalism. Let's review some of your opinions, and get educated.

<snip>

No.

I'm speaking to matt608 of the opinions of people who think of environmental activists as kooks. Continuing to act in a manner that disregards their rights, property and views while claiming an educated high ground is only going to perpetuate, or worsen, their the activists' standing in society.

Activism is a role played by a certain group of people. It has negative and positive effects. But look at the title of the thread. It says 'environmentalists', not activists.

Yes, but the tangent that our conversation went off toward was focused specifically on activists, and in fact, the article focused specifically on activists.

Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir.

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms.

It further found participants were less interested in befriending activists who participated in stereotypical behavior (such as staging protest rallies), but could easily envision hanging out with those who use “nonabrasive and mainstream methods” such as raising money or organizing social events.

Just saying.

It's important to understand the difference, and who and what environmentalists are. They're not just the conscious person who recycles bottles and cans and drives a Prius. And they're not just activists. Those two groups are the least important groups of environmentalists. The third group are those people who have a large set of knowledge on the subject of the environment. They may be scientists, professors, speakers, philanthropists, lobbyists, executives of conservation organizations, or, retired activists, now engaging in real projects, such as the rewilding of North America using GIS databases. They are field research specialists, urban planners, entomologists, climate scientists, architects, ecologists, writers, botanists, hydroponics researchers, and so on. They are people doing herd studies in Africa, people reintroducing the wolf into Yellowstone, researchers studying trophic cascades in the northwest, people engaging in coral reef studies, educated CEOs of particular clothing companies, researchers of island biogeography, individuals developing methods for sustainable salmon fishing, documentary filmmakers...

While technically I agree with you, that everyone should be judged according to their own actions and not those of others, there's always going to be a degree of conflation between different subsets of a group that centers around specific core interests and concerns. Anyone who claims to be an environmentalist, or who is involved in overtly environmentalist activity to a large enough degree that others can make the association, is going to be lumped in with the (highly visible) activists, and is going to be assumed to be of a similar disposition unless they show otherwise.

For that reason, activists being more conscious of the impact that their attitudes and actions have would help. The "treehuggers" could acknowledge that should they get their way, they'll put people out of a job and make their life immediately worse, with nothing of real benefit gained within their lifetime, in the view of those impacted at least.

Really, were all politics to be divorced from the issue entirely (including no new laws stepping on other's rights to bring about the results that environmentalists see as beneficial) I could easily see even the yokels I know actually having a degree of (initially begrudging) respect for the environmentalist mindset, and being far more willing to consider their admonitions.

After all, people don't generally "hate" nutritionists. But were they to be put in charge of determining what others ate and drank, or were there activist groups calling themselves nutritionists that held protests outside of fast-food places and tried to forcefully disrupt "Candy Day" every Halloween, that would probably change pretty quickly, and I doubt that all the education in the world--or even the fact that self-proclaimed nutritionists weren't doing such things just the year prior!--would matter.

It sucks, but that's human nature. I'd think the only thing that could really be done for a group/movement/mindset that has such "bad actors" would be for every member to distance themselves as far as possible from such people, denounce them, and refuse to give them a "place at the table" or even any sympathy. And let the media know the ostracism is occuring. May seem harsh, but unless a sufficiently large percentage of the population is overtly environmentally-active already, I don't see any other efforts working.

[FirstAscent]

Westkybitcoin,

Nutritionists are a bad example. What you put in your body is going to have less of an effect on others as what happens with environmental destruction. So, don't confuse regulations of one with another. The first thing you should do is read again that long post I made a few posts back so you don't make bad analogies like you just did. We don't need people making bad analogies because they don't understand the ramifications.

[matt608]

It's important to understand the difference, and who and what environmentalists are. They're not just the conscious person who recycles bottles and cans and drives a Prius. And they're not just activists. Those two groups are the least important groups of environmentalists. The third group are those people who have a large set of knowledge on the subject of the environment. They may be scientists, professors, speakers, philanthropists, lobbyists, executives of conservation organizations, or, retired activists, now engaging in real projects, such as the rewilding of North America using GIS databases. They are field research specialists, urban planners, entomologists, climate scientists, architects, ecologists, writers, botanists, hydroponics researchers, and so on. They are people doing herd studies in Africa, people reintroducing the wolf into Yellowstone, researchers studying trophic cascades in the northwest, people engaging in coral reef studies, educated CEOs of particular clothing companies, researchers of island biogeography, individuals developing methods for sustainable salmon fishing, documentary filmmakers...

Agreed, all these professions you mention play important roles in environmentalism.  I don't agree that the bottle can recyclers and activists are the least important.  Recycling is vital for everyone.  Some scientific research, even though professional ends up being useless, and some things activists do are important, such as getting on the news to raise awareness about an environmental issue.  

I'm speaking to matt608 of the opinions of people who think of environmental activists as kooks. Continuing to act in a manner that disregards their rights, property and views while claiming an educated high ground is only going to perpetuate, or worsen, their the activists' standing in society.

For that reason, activists being more conscious of the impact that their attitudes and actions have would help. The "treehuggers" could acknowledge that should they get their way, they'll put people out of a job and make their life immediately worse, with nothing of real benefit gained within their lifetime, in the view of those impacted at least.

I'm certainly not in favour of deliberately doing things that violate rights such as property rights, unless there is good reason to do so, most activists I think would agree.  For example, fracking.  I don't know what your stance is on fracking but its been scientifically proven to poison ground water, pollute the air locally and release large amounts of green house gasses, as well as cause earthquakes, release radiation that was previously stored underground in the rocks, and permanently pollute huge amounts of water used in the hydraulic fracturing process.  

Given these facts, many activists would say that setting up a fracking rig  near someone's home violates their rights, because it physically attacks them.  If someone was setting off a chemical weapon with these effects we would call it a terrorist attack.  So an activist chaining themselves to the gate or blocking the road to the fracking site is well within their rights, because actually, the frackers are violating the rigts of the local people and the activists is defending their rights.  If the system was working properly fracking would be illegal, as it is in many countries.  

This is what I mean when I say the activists are often well educated and informed on the matter they are protesting agains. They know that whatever it is they are protesting against is a violation of rights, and they are prepared to violate 'lesser rights' in order to protect the more import basic rights, such as the right to clean drinking water, or the right to clean air.

If someone loses their job and their job was to destroy the local environment and make climate change more severe for the profit of massive corporations, it's a good thing that they lose their job.  

[westkybitcoins]

Westkybitcoin,

Nutritionists are a bad example. What you put in your body is going to have less of an effect on others as what happens with environmental destruction. So, don't confuse regulations of one with another. The first thing you should do is read again that long post I made a few posts back so you don't make bad analogies like you just did. We don't need people making bad analogies because they don't understand the ramifications.

You believe nutritionists are a bad example because you believe their concerns are of less significance than environmental concerns. I get that, and tend to agree somewhat with the premise for your objection. But your objection to it as an analogy suggests you're not understanding where the people who contributed to the study results are coming from.

To the minds of many people, environmentalists have about the same relevance as nutritionists. Sure, those folks are not stupid, they'll agree that environmental concerns can have a much more widespread impact; but the immediate relevance to their lives of any given specialist in either field will be seen as close enough that nutritionists and environmentalists will collectively be viewed fairly similarly: as people with ridiculously-deep knowledge of an esoteric field that, while possibly somewhat interesting and helpful, is nevertheless overkill for the desired outcomes, and certainly not worth any prominent recognition or authority in their life. It wouldn't be stated that way of course, but that's the view.

I've seen the mindset often enough that I stand by that analysis of the situation. How people generally view nutritionists is similar enough to how a fairly sizable segment of the U.S. populace views environmentalists that most analogies regarding public interaction (and any resulting backlashes) are quite valid. Right or wrong, lobbying for laws to protect animals or environmental habitats is seen in the same light as lobbying for laws to restrict what your child can purchase from the vending machines in school. Refusing to even contemplate others viewing environmentalists in that light isn't going to help the situation.

And that is really what this comes down to. The actual or alleged validity of the arguments doesn't matter: if the group has public activism of a  coercive nature, then there will be backlash simply because people take offense at being interfered with. That's the aspect of the public perspective that needs to be taken into account if environmentalists want to really make headway.

Or not, I guess; I don't exactly have a dog in the race as far as environmentalism's public image goes. *shrug*

[westkybitcoins]

I'm speaking to matt608 of the opinions of people who think of environmental activists as kooks. Continuing to act in a manner that disregards their rights, property and views while claiming an educated high ground is only going to perpetuate, or worsen, their the activists' standing in society.

For that reason, activists being more conscious of the impact that their attitudes and actions have would help. The "treehuggers" could acknowledge that should they get their way, they'll put people out of a job and make their life immediately worse, with nothing of real benefit gained within their lifetime, in the view of those impacted at least.

I'm certainly not in favour of deliberately doing things that violate rights such as property rights, unless there is good reason to do so, most activists I think would agree.  For example, fracking.  I don't know what your stance is on fracking but its been scientifically proven to poison ground water, pollute the air locally and release large amounts of green house gasses, as well as cause earthquakes, release radiation that was previously stored underground in the rocks, and permanently pollute huge amounts of water used in the hydraulic fracturing process.  

Given these facts, many activists would say that setting up a fracking rig  near someone's home violates their rights, because it physically attacks them.  If someone was setting off a chemical weapon with these effects we would call it a terrorist attack.  So an activist chaining themselves to the gate or blocking the road to the fracking site is well within their rights, because actually, the frackers are violating the rigts of the local people and the activists is defending their rights.  If the system was working properly fracking would be illegal, as it is in many countries.  

This is what I mean when I say the activists are often well educated and informed on the matter they are protesting agains. They know that whatever it is they are protesting against is a violation of rights, and they are prepared to violate 'lesser rights' in order to protect the more import basic rights, such as the right to clean drinking water, or the right to clean air.

If someone loses their job and their job was to destroy the local environment and make climate change more severe for the profit of massive corporations, it's a good thing that they lose their job.  

But the problem starts out right away. "Unless there is good reason to do so."

From the perspective of many, there isn't good reason for most environmental proposals, and because environmentalists are generally perceived as spending more time forcing their opinion onto others than proving the case that something is good or bad, people get quite angry with them.

It might help if you delineate between pollution issues and others in your mind. Again, most people are on board with stopping pollution. But the public image of environmentalists is NOT of courageous people stopping the powerful from polluting on innocent people's property. Not by a long shot. Using that aspect of activism as a starting point is going to lead you astray if you really want to know what's behind this study's results; to address the image problem, you have to address the actual intrusions of environmental activists into private affairs (i.e., no third party [EDIT: as in a *person*] is getting their property, food, water or air damaged.)

[redtwitz]

Feminism

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. [...]

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes.

Well, that makes sense. North American women have little to complain about. Now, if you're a woman and you live in one of those fancy countries where you're not allowed to use a t-shirt or drive a car and get executed for adultery if somebody rapes you, well, that's a different story.

Environmentalism

It depends, most people here in Europe are concerned about global warming, environment, and everyone makes small steps to help it (by reducing greenhouse gas emission, sort wastes, and so on.

Greenhouse gases are a myth. Think about it: A CO₂ molecule has an atomic weight of 44 (CFCs are much heavier), while an N₂ (the main component of "air") has an atomic weight of 28. How are those much heavier molecules supposed to get all the way up to the stratosphere?

I don't believe global warming has anything to do with mankind. There have been several ice ages (technically, we're still in one), and there will be more long after the last human died. It's getting warmer right now and the world is full of humans, but correlation does not imply causation.

[wachtwoord]

+1 for the outcome of this study!

[FirstAscent]

It might help if you delineate between pollution issues and others in your mind. Again, most people are on board with stopping pollution. But the public image of environmentalists is NOT of courageous people stopping the powerful from polluting on innocent people's property. Not by a long shot. Using that aspect of activism as a starting point is going to lead you astray if you really want to know what's behind this study's results; to address the image problem, you have to address the actual intrusions of environmental activists into private affairs (i.e., no third party [EDIT: as in a *person*] is getting their property, food, water or air damaged.)

Please stop making posts until you have digested that long post I made. Why are you insisting that pollution is the only real environmental concern?

[pand70]

Many environmentalists have hidden agentas.
I don't hate them but my first reaction towards someone that claims to be an environmentalist is that he is a hypocrite.
That being said i think we all must do our share for a cleaner environment.

[FirstAscent]

Many environmentalists have hidden agentas.
I don't hate them but my first reaction towards someone that claims to be an environmentalist is that he is a hypocrite.
That being said i think we all must do our share for a cleaner environment.

Your viewpoint simply isn't constructive. Doing your share isn't about recycling bottles. What "doing your share" really is, is understanding what's really going on, or, of you're not interested, then "doing your share" means, don't make statements that environmentalists are hypocrites.

[westkybitcoins]

It might help if you delineate between pollution issues and others in your mind. Again, most people are on board with stopping pollution. But the public image of environmentalists is NOT of courageous people stopping the powerful from polluting on innocent people's property. Not by a long shot. Using that aspect of activism as a starting point is going to lead you astray if you really want to know what's behind this study's results; to address the image problem, you have to address the actual intrusions of environmental activists into private affairs (i.e., no third party [EDIT: as in a *person*] is getting their property, food, water or air damaged.)

Please stop making posts until you have digested that long post I made.

No.

Why are you insisting that pollution is the only real environmental concern?

I'm not. I'm telling you that to a large percentage of the population, that's their perspective.

[FirstAscent]

It might help if you delineate between pollution issues and others in your mind. Again, most people are on board with stopping pollution. But the public image of environmentalists is NOT of courageous people stopping the powerful from polluting on innocent people's property. Not by a long shot. Using that aspect of activism as a starting point is going to lead you astray if you really want to know what's behind this study's results; to address the image problem, you have to address the actual intrusions of environmental activists into private affairs (i.e., no third party [EDIT: as in a *person*] is getting their property, food, water or air damaged.)

Please stop making posts until you have digested that long post I made.

No.

So you're engaging in willful ignorance then?

[westkybitcoins]

Many environmentalists have hidden agentas.
I don't hate them but my first reaction towards someone that claims to be an environmentalist is that he is a hypocrite.
That being said i think we all must do our share for a cleaner environment.

Your viewpoint simply isn't constructive. Doing your share isn't about recycling bottles. What "doing your share" really is, is understanding what's really going on, or, of you're not interested, then "doing your share" means, don't make statements that environmentalists are hypocrites.

You're not helping the problem here.

It might help if you delineate between pollution issues and others in your mind. Again, most people are on board with stopping pollution. But the public image of environmentalists is NOT of courageous people stopping the powerful from polluting on innocent people's property. Not by a long shot. Using that aspect of activism as a starting point is going to lead you astray if you really want to know what's behind this study's results; to address the image problem, you have to address the actual intrusions of environmental activists into private affairs (i.e., no third party [EDIT: as in a *person*] is getting their property, food, water or air damaged.)

Please stop making posts until you have digested that long post I made.

No.

So you're engaging in willful ignorance then?

I'm ignoring irrelevancies.

If you expect the average person to spend dozens of hours studying up on environmental issues, or to take steps to become "fully environmentally aware" or whatever before they can open their mouth or speak out against a law, you're not only being unreasonable, but your insistence is fueling the negative backlash on environmentalists, and by association environmentalism.

The topic here is why do people dislike environmentalists. I don't think you're giving that thought much consideration in your responses.

[pand70]

Many environmentalists have hidden agentas.
I don't hate them but my first reaction towards someone that claims to be an environmentalist is that he is a hypocrite.
That being said i think we all must do our share for a cleaner environment.

Your viewpoint simply isn't constructive. Doing your share isn't about recycling bottles. What "doing your share" really is, is understanding what's really going on, or, of you're not interested, then "doing your share" means, don't make statements that environmentalists are hypocrites.

I didn't say that environmentalists are hypocrites. I said many of them are.
I 'm not talking about the funny tree-hugging hippies that i really like but about guys with actual power in their hands that are cutting down forests in order to install wind turbines! And all that in the name of alternative power sources.

[westkybitcoins]

Feminism

In one, the participants—228 Americans recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk—described both varieties of activists in “overwhelmingly negative” terms. [...]

Another study, featuring 17 male and 45 female undergraduates, confirmed the pervasiveness of those stereotypes.

Well, that makes sense. North American women have little to complain about. Now, if you're a woman and you live in one of those fancy countries where you're not allowed to use a t-shirt or drive a car and get executed for adultery if somebody rapes you, well, that's a different story.

You know, now that you point it out I'm kind of surprised that the second study confirmed this result regarding feminism, considering it was undergrads (and 75% female at that.)

[FirstAscent]

I'm ignoring irrelevancies.

No. You're spouting opinions about a subject you refuse to get educated on. Your non education is not my affair, unless you hold an ill informed opinion on something I know about. Regardless of the subject here, your "opinion" would be more effective, more informed, and more intelligent if it were supported with some knowledge. Otherwise, one can only conclude that it is less effective, less informed, and less intelligent.

[FirstAscent]

Many environmentalists have hidden agentas.
I don't hate them but my first reaction towards someone that claims to be an environmentalist is that he is a hypocrite.
That being said i think we all must do our share for a cleaner environment.

Your viewpoint simply isn't constructive. Doing your share isn't about recycling bottles. What "doing your share" really is, is understanding what's really going on, or, of you're not interested, then "doing your share" means, don't make statements that environmentalists are hypocrites.

I didn't say that environmentalists are hypocrites. I said many of them are.
I 'm not talking about the funny tree-hugging hippies that i really like but about guys with actual power in their hands that are cutting down forests in order to install wind turbines! And all that in the name of alternative power sources.

You're referring to entrepreneurs, a class of person that I did not necessarily qualify as an environmentalist several posts back. However, some entrepreneurs are very respectable environmentalists, such as Yvon Chouinard, founder and CEO of Patagonia.