GreenPeace v VW
Discussion
it is probably a pearoast, and I may have posted this in the wrong section however I thought this article was quite interesting and sure to get the anti lentilist brigade fuming.
http://www.am-online.com/news/2011/9/6/greenpeace-...
they have been very naughty ( Greeenpeace that is) can we do a counter market campaign against them?
http://www.am-online.com/news/2011/9/6/greenpeace-...
they have been very naughty ( Greeenpeace that is) can we do a counter market campaign against them?
Gotta chuckle at the stuff on their http://www.vwdarkside.com/ website
They have 3 main points, 2 of which at least are stretches.
2. Supporting fuel efficiency - well yes I think they are actually! They do indeed offer a range of very frugal cars, do they not check these things? And I like how the title is about fuel efficiency and the passage immediately starts banging on about CO2 which was covered in the first point. Effectively points 1 and 2 are one and the same.
3. Put your tech where your mouth is - some such bobbins about only 6% of VW's being from the eco-pool of bluemotion cars. Im sorry, whats that got to do with VW? They're not the ones buying the cars...they're the ones making the cars to meet demand. Clearly people with the money to afford a nice VW would rather not be tooling around in a wet lettuce powered, poverty spec eco-version. Thats not really VW's fault is it.
They have 3 main points, 2 of which at least are stretches.
2. Supporting fuel efficiency - well yes I think they are actually! They do indeed offer a range of very frugal cars, do they not check these things? And I like how the title is about fuel efficiency and the passage immediately starts banging on about CO2 which was covered in the first point. Effectively points 1 and 2 are one and the same.
3. Put your tech where your mouth is - some such bobbins about only 6% of VW's being from the eco-pool of bluemotion cars. Im sorry, whats that got to do with VW? They're not the ones buying the cars...they're the ones making the cars to meet demand. Clearly people with the money to afford a nice VW would rather not be tooling around in a wet lettuce powered, poverty spec eco-version. Thats not really VW's fault is it.
aizvara said:
Happy82 said:
Wonder why they didn't do this campaign against a French carmaker?
Whatever you think about Greenpeace today, I think laughing about the bombing of that ship is a bit harsh.So, going for "Ze Chermans", where rules and laws are a little more important is a softer option. Once VW are dragged into line by the yoghurt weavers, VW will use their marketing prowess to make this new ECOness a major factor in their sales campaigns, and overcome competitive manufacturers - including zose pres d'ici acruss La Manche unless Zey obey orderrs of
So, it is a domino affect.
Sinking a militant group's ship that plans to force us all into gutless, boring cars as soon as possible? Sounds like a laugh to me.
SeeFive said:
aizvara said:
Happy82 said:
Wonder why they didn't do this campaign against a French carmaker?
Whatever you think about Greenpeace today, I think laughing about the bombing of that ship is a bit harsh.
.jpg)
SeeFive said:
Sinking a militant group's ship that plans to force us all into gutless, boring cars as soon as possible? Sounds like a laugh to me.
The Greenpeace of 1985 is not the same organisation as Greenpeace today, for better or worse. And I doubt the photographer's family would agree with you about the bombing being a laugh.aizvara said:
SeeFive said:
Sinking a militant group's ship that plans to force us all into gutless, boring cars as soon as possible? Sounds like a laugh to me.
The Greenpeace of 1985 is not the same organisation as Greenpeace today, for better or worse. And I doubt the photographer's family would agree with you about the bombing being a laugh.
It's all their fault A quick flick at Google raises easy to see examples of their stupidity and risk they put others to in sorting them out:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/01/militant-greenp...
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/FX_mJRviQuh/Greenpe...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1219638/Gr...
Well, I guess if he was getting his camera for more propaganda pics of the car-sized hole blown in the hull, rather than getting off the boat after the first explosion (they were 10 minutes apart) there is an element of Darwinism in his drowning, which tends to make me giggle a bit having a sick and very non-correct sense of humour - like many others I guess.
Finally, I trust that you are not closely related to the Danish photographer in question? If you are, you have my sympathies. If not, then I will not critise your right to be upset for something IMO that has 4/5 of FA personal relevance to you, so please do not lecture me (and others) on our sentiments for people involved in this sort of organisation for whatever personal reasons we may hold.
There is a shorter way of saying all that, but it is a bit rude and you seem like a sensitive type.
SeeFive said:
There is a shorter way of saying all that, but it is a bit rude and you seem like a sensitive type.
Yep, sensitive type here. I have both empathy and imagination. So I didn't find the sinking funny. That's despite not agreeing with Greenpeace's current focus and aims - I'm not trying to defend them, as I think I hinted in my last post. In particular, the risk and actions involved in the recent media-friendly moronic stunts is somewhat removed from being bombed whilst moored up in New Zealand. I also find it amazing that a modern European government would think that this was a reasonable course of action.There's no Darwinianism-in-action in his death; he already had an eight year old daughter. Yes, perhaps I'm having a sense of humour failure, though I too would describe myself as having a non-pc outlook in general. Just doesn't trigger on this occasion, so perhaps I'm wrong.
Regarding my relationship with him and my vicariously upset status. I'm not upset, just surprised. Didn't know him, but I do know people involved with Greenpeace in the past, and I know many who are involved in those sorts of organisations (including my GF), so you'll perhaps forgive me if I don't find this sort of thing funny. I don't agree with them on the topic of the internal combustion engine, but I still don't wish them ill, hope for them to be silenced by government agencies, or derive humour from their misfortune.
I'm amazed people do.
Anyway, back on topic: don't agree with their focus on VW (or anything they do in general); seems odd, but they are probably upset more about the supposed lobbying than anything else. Why go after someone who already produces gutless and boring cars?
aizvara said:
Yes, perhaps I'm having a sense of humour failure, though I too would describe myself as having a non-pc outlook in general. Just doesn't trigger on this occasion, so perhaps I'm wrong.
There is no right or wrong, just differences. People react to things in different ways for many reasons. We don't all have to agree, but we do have the right not to be subjected to pressure to react in a proscribed way by individuals or groups. That is one way of pressure groups like this, often with little true knowledge of, or blatant perversion of the facts behind the subject gain support - generic Greenpeace. The fact that I feel that a guy with an 8 year old daughter should have more sense than to put himself into unnecessary mortal danger for an asshole organisation like that is my view, not everyone else's, but hey-ho, what does that matter. IMO, he was obviously committed to the cause more than his family when he boarded a gravely damaged ship to get his camera.
As much as it was a waste of a good vessel, I had no problem with the loss of the ship given the symbolism that surrounds it, and the way I personally feel about that organisation's motives and methods. Those that start a conflict from a point of capability disadvantage should expect casualties when the opposition shows its teeth - rightly or wrongly. The loss of life was a shame - I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It did not need to happen. But that is not the first thing that springs to mind when I think of that event. A forgotten a casualty of the way that this group operates is not the primary source of my lack of indignation at the French authorities.
I am sure that there will be more casualties with, for example the stupid on-water Japanese anti-whaling stunts that these people (and other organisations that their founders now run) dream up. What do you do when a fly is annoying you - you knock it away. But when it persists, you swat it. Greenpeace are annoying the hell out of a lot of people and acting quite dangerously in terms of their activists safety - see the whaling f..wittery seamanship thread. The blood will be on their hands when they take casualties, not the hands of those going about their lives and livelihoods.
We differ, it won't hurt anyone to accept it.
Otispunkmeyer said:
They're not the ones buying the cars...they're the ones making the cars to meet demand. Clearly people with the money to afford a nice VW would rather not be tooling around in a wet lettuce powered, poverty spec eco-version. Thats not really VW's fault is it.
Your confusing them with people who allow choice...SeeFive said:
We differ, it won't hurt anyone to accept it.
Except that we don't differ that much; as I have already said I don't endorse their views, particularly these days. I feel that their media friendly stunts are stupid. I differ with you in so much as I don't find amusement in their suffering at the hands of others. I also have some sympathy for their aim in that instance, and none whatsoever for the actions of the French government. Who, incidentally, "started that conflict", the New Zealand government waded in years before, sending their own ships to the test site, and Greenpeace continued it when underground testing persisted.Regarding the photographer's actions; yes he was stupid, but he probably didn't expect another bomb. He took a risk (possibly for his beliefs, possibly simply to get his stuff) and lost, many have done similar things.
Anyway, I'll continue not finding it funny.
SeeFive said:
The fact that I feel that a guy with an 8 year old daughter should have more sense than to put himself into unnecessary mortal danger for an asshole organisation like that is my view, not everyone else's, but hey-ho, what does that matter. IMO, he was obviously committed to the cause more than his family when he boarded a gravely damaged ship to get his camera.
As much as it was a waste of a good vessel, I had no problem with the loss of the ship given the symbolism that surrounds it, and the way I personally feel about that organisation's motives and methods. Those that start a conflict from a point of capability disadvantage should expect casualties when the opposition shows its teeth - rightly or wrongly. The loss of life was a shame - I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It did not need to happen. But that is not the first thing that springs to mind when I think of that event. A forgotten a casualty of the way that this group operates is not the primary source of my lack of indignation at the French authorities.
I am sure that there will be more casualties with, for example the stupid on-water Japanese anti-whaling stunts that these people (and other organisations that their founders now run) dream up. What do you do when a fly is annoying you - you knock it away. But when it persists, you swat it. Greenpeace are annoying the hell out of a lot of people and acting quite dangerously in terms of their activists safety - see the whaling f..wittery seamanship thread. The blood will be on their hands when they take casualties, not the hands of those going about their lives and livelihoods.
We differ, it won't hurt anyone to accept it.
Put himself at risk eh? I'm not sure anyone thought that the French secret service would go out of its way to kill someone him a foreign harbour. This was extreme even by French standards. Murder and bullying of a country. Like the Americans when they shot down the Iran Air flight 655, the pepetuator of the murder of an innocent acutally got a medal.As much as it was a waste of a good vessel, I had no problem with the loss of the ship given the symbolism that surrounds it, and the way I personally feel about that organisation's motives and methods. Those that start a conflict from a point of capability disadvantage should expect casualties when the opposition shows its teeth - rightly or wrongly. The loss of life was a shame - I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It did not need to happen. But that is not the first thing that springs to mind when I think of that event. A forgotten a casualty of the way that this group operates is not the primary source of my lack of indignation at the French authorities.
I am sure that there will be more casualties with, for example the stupid on-water Japanese anti-whaling stunts that these people (and other organisations that their founders now run) dream up. What do you do when a fly is annoying you - you knock it away. But when it persists, you swat it. Greenpeace are annoying the hell out of a lot of people and acting quite dangerously in terms of their activists safety - see the whaling f..wittery seamanship thread. The blood will be on their hands when they take casualties, not the hands of those going about their lives and livelihoods.
We differ, it won't hurt anyone to accept it.
The lives and livelihoods of the japanese whalers is against international law. They are the ones committing offences. Any blood must surely be on their hands. When no one else cares then what should you do? Just say 'someone should do something'?
Derek Smith said:
SeeFive said:
The fact that I feel that a guy with an 8 year old daughter should have more sense than to put himself into unnecessary mortal danger for an asshole organisation like that is my view, not everyone else's, but hey-ho, what does that matter. IMO, he was obviously committed to the cause more than his family when he boarded a gravely damaged ship to get his camera.
As much as it was a waste of a good vessel, I had no problem with the loss of the ship given the symbolism that surrounds it, and the way I personally feel about that organisation's motives and methods. Those that start a conflict from a point of capability disadvantage should expect casualties when the opposition shows its teeth - rightly or wrongly. The loss of life was a shame - I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It did not need to happen. But that is not the first thing that springs to mind when I think of that event. A forgotten a casualty of the way that this group operates is not the primary source of my lack of indignation at the French authorities.
I am sure that there will be more casualties with, for example the stupid on-water Japanese anti-whaling stunts that these people (and other organisations that their founders now run) dream up. What do you do when a fly is annoying you - you knock it away. But when it persists, you swat it. Greenpeace are annoying the hell out of a lot of people and acting quite dangerously in terms of their activists safety - see the whaling f..wittery seamanship thread. The blood will be on their hands when they take casualties, not the hands of those going about their lives and livelihoods.
We differ, it won't hurt anyone to accept it.
Put himself at risk eh? I'm not sure anyone thought that the French secret service would go out of its way to kill someone him a foreign harbour. This was extreme even by French standards. Murder and bullying of a country. Like the Americans when they shot down the Iran Air flight 655, the pepetuator of the murder of an innocent acutally got a medal.As much as it was a waste of a good vessel, I had no problem with the loss of the ship given the symbolism that surrounds it, and the way I personally feel about that organisation's motives and methods. Those that start a conflict from a point of capability disadvantage should expect casualties when the opposition shows its teeth - rightly or wrongly. The loss of life was a shame - I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It did not need to happen. But that is not the first thing that springs to mind when I think of that event. A forgotten a casualty of the way that this group operates is not the primary source of my lack of indignation at the French authorities.
I am sure that there will be more casualties with, for example the stupid on-water Japanese anti-whaling stunts that these people (and other organisations that their founders now run) dream up. What do you do when a fly is annoying you - you knock it away. But when it persists, you swat it. Greenpeace are annoying the hell out of a lot of people and acting quite dangerously in terms of their activists safety - see the whaling f..wittery seamanship thread. The blood will be on their hands when they take casualties, not the hands of those going about their lives and livelihoods.
We differ, it won't hurt anyone to accept it.
The lives and livelihoods of the japanese whalers is against international law. They are the ones committing offences. Any blood must surely be on their hands. When no one else cares then what should you do? Just say 'someone should do something'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/06/...
Put volunteers and third parties at risk? Likewise, no.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/whale_...
Greenpeas lost the plot long ago.
Former leader and co-founder of Greenpeace Dr P Moore said:
There were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over. After Greenham Common closed and the Berlin Wall came down these extremists were searching for a new cause and found it in environmentalism. The old agendas of class struggle and anti-corporatism are still there but now they are dressed up in environmental terminology.
We have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.
We have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.
aizvara said:
Except that we don't differ that much; as I have already said I don't endorse their views, particularly these days. I feel that their media friendly stunts are stupid. I differ with you in so much as I don't find amusement in their suffering at the hands of others. I also have some sympathy for their aim in that instance, and none whatsoever for the actions of the French government. Who, incidentally, "started that conflict", the New Zealand government waded in years before, sending their own ships to the test site, and Greenpeace continued it when underground testing persisted.
Regarding the photographer's actions; yes he was stupid, but he probably didn't expect another bomb. He took a risk (possibly for his beliefs, possibly simply to get his stuff) and lost, many have done similar things.
Anyway, I'll continue not finding it funny.
As mentioned, his loss of life is not the thing that springs to mind when thinking of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. I am not pleased that a man lost his life, and his kid lost a father - whether through his own bad decisions or not, whatever his motivation. One thing for sure, I would not have taken his action to get my gear, or gather propaganda.Regarding the photographer's actions; yes he was stupid, but he probably didn't expect another bomb. He took a risk (possibly for his beliefs, possibly simply to get his stuff) and lost, many have done similar things.
Anyway, I'll continue not finding it funny.
But a slap in the face and a loss of capability for Greenpeace, now that is something else.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff