How to counter-troll Greenpeacefags?

The last couple weeks, as I've been walking the eight blocks between buildings at work in DC, I've been approached by kids in blue T-shirts asking me to participate in a survey or whatever. Well, I just noticed last Friday that they were actually with Greenpeace.

How would you guys scare these kids straight before they get recruited for full-fledged eco-terror?

mmmmm
try puking into their mouths

Just troll them. Use the biggest and most intelligent anti-environmental arguments you can find and tell it to them. Say it in a logical and calm manner as if you actually believe it. Watch as they get mad and butthurt and lulz will ensue.

Then the next day, act holier-than-thou and accuse them of not doing enough to save the earth.

I go to school in Chicago.  They approach me every couple of months.  They see me as a liberal target because I wear internet t-shirts.  I am conservative and strongly oppose Greenpeace. 


I always ask the environmentalists what they think about nuclear power.  I particularly hate Greenpeace because of the slander and blatant lies about nuclear power.  In Europe, they ran an ad featuring mystical mutated animals running through a forest and tried to blame nuclear power.

The best counter is to make a valid point about something they don't support.  Liberals like them are so narrowly focused that they will not be able to respond to any sensible debate.  Nuclear is great for this.

It emits no CO2.  The deaths from the mining of uranium combined with the deaths from radiation (zero) are far fewer than the lives lost in any given coal mining accident.  There are more fatal accidents in fossil fuel plants than nuclear plants by far.

Radiation is never released.  Ever.  Even in core meltdowns, the radiation has never breached the massive concrete shell.  Chernobyl was a Soviet multipurpose plant designed both to generate power and create weapons-grade nuclear material and was without such a shell.  There is more radioactivity released from uranium in coal burned in coal plants than is ever released from a nuclear plant.

The only pollution is the spent radioactive fuel.  First, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 limits the reuse of fuel.  The technology is available to recycle fuel and ultimately reduce the radioactivity when the spent fuel is finally ready to be stored.  Furthermore, there is no plan for permanent fuel storage because of pressure and fear-mongering from groups like Greenpeace.  We could have had a storage plan thirty years ago, but nuclear was made so taboo that no progress was made.

As opposed to the renewable sources Greenpeace will try to push on you, nuclear is clean, cheap, and reliable.  It can compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and capacity.  Fuel is abundant and efficient.  In terms of megawatts per area, nuclear plants have a significantly smaller footprint than any renewable sources such as wind and solar.  It does not dam rivers or destroy ecosystems.


Just pick some good points out of that and strike up a discussion.  See what they have to say about the Greenpeace stance on nuclear, then give them your points.  Also don't fall for it if they try to tell you the official stance is not against nuclear.  It is stated on their website.  Bring up that and the commercial if they try it.

I wish I could study up and get a good speech together before talking to them.  I'm usually in a rush and can never give enough points; I just walk away after asking.  Good luck trollin'!

>>5
Envirowackos don't really care about any of that stuff.  It's all talking points to them.

They hate themselves because Daddy didn't buy them a pony when they were nine years old, and via the psychological mechanism of transference they hate the White race and Western Civilization.  They want to go back to the caves, right fucking now, because if White Western man were worthy to survive, Daddy would have bought him a pony on his birthday.

This is what liberalism is.  It's a mental disorder.  They want to wreck the world because they're angry at Daddy/the West/Capitalism/Uncle Sam/God and they want to die and take the whole world down with them, so that we'll all be so very very sorry about the whales and the Indians and the poor misunderstood Negro slaves before we die.  They want to see the world burn.

If tomorrow by magic you pulled out of your ass a nuclear reactor using previously unsuspected principles of physics, which could not be used for any destructive purpose, which ran forever producing unlimited power and which could be mass-produced for a dollar and ninety-eight cents THEY WOULD STILL OPPOSE IT.  "But this is unsustainable!"  "But this separates us from our connection to Gaia!"  "But this is materialism and we need to change our hearts!"  "Science has unleashed monsters, how do we know this thing is really as safe as you say it is?"  "It's unacceptable and RAAAAAAAAAAAACIST that majority-White countries will have this first!"  Which translates to:  "awwwwwwwwwwwww, I wanted to burn the whole fucking world down to punish Daddy!"

Read Kaczynski's manifesto.  Yeah, he was a lunatic who killed people he'd never even met.  Yeah, he was an envirowacko himself.  But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and his grasp of the psychology of modern leftists rings true.

Postmodern "progressivism," which is basically a Maoist-influenced totalitarian ideology not content to control people's actions, as Stalin and Hitler did, but which also claims the authority to control people's thoughts.  Note the obsession with "tolerance," any disagreement with which is THOUGHTCRIME and not tolerated by these who proclaim themselves to be the most tolerant in all human history.  They are "True Believers" in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word.

Environmentalism is Wahhabism for spoiled rich white kids who've never missed a meal and never had to break a sweat in their lives, obsessed with an idealized and wholly fictional pre-industrial, pre-agricultural past that never was.

>>6
This is how to countertroll greenpeacefags.  Be just as aggressive, arrogant, closed minded, and ignorant as they are.

>>6

If tomorrow by magic you pulled out of your ass a nuclear reactor using previously unsuspected principles of physics, which could not be used for any destructive purpose, which ran forever producing unlimited power and which could be mass-produced for a dollar and ninety-eight cents THEY WOULD STILL OPPOSE IT.


Actually this is precisely what they do support. In particular, wind power. Extremely cheap to setup and run, produces unlimited energy, with widespread rollout can provide baseload power. The reason why it's never taken off is unlimited supply = low profit. Coal is more profitable, it's the only reason we're still using it. Oh, and I'm all for nuclear as well.

>>6
Kacynskis raises some interesting observations but unfortunately he possessed a very ad hoc view of psychology and his analysis was poor, though not inherantly flawed.

Leftism could be described as a plethora of defense mechanisms stemming from the same stimuli which Kacynski describes as "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization" which may be more accurately defined as social anxiety. I remember back in the day when I was 12 a group of kids started trying to bully me, I quickly discovered that the cure for bullying was assertiveness but for a while I was confused and it was during this period I possessed the mindset of a liberal.

I couldn't admit that they bullied me because I was being annoying, they made fun of my clothes, polished shoes and satchel which is unreasonable so I deluded myself into believing that this is their sole motivation and that I am the biggest victim in the world in an emotional fit in which I wanted to avoid thinking anything that so much as made me feel bad about myself. I can certainly imagine wanting to tear down civilisation just to prove to the world that I was superior to them all along.

>>8
Consider the situation after the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement is the equivalent of pulling a clean safe infinite energy source out of your ass and for most people of moderate conservative nature this was great news but for a minority of leftists this was a disaster. These are the politically correct types, they want to imprison people for saying "happy christmas", they want to ban bras and hooters and be judged on how oppressed they believe they are instead of their merits. These are the people who are willing to sacrifice everything from their dignity to their sanity so they can get their pound of flesh.

Trolling is never acceptable!

>>11
You're an anus!
And I done told you, you can't hide.

>>8
Wind power isn't quite that practical.  Can you command the wind to blow when demand spikes?

The biggest spikes in electricity demand in North America tend to be on hot humid summer days when there isn't much wind, so tens of millions of people go indoors and turn on the a/c simultaneously.

It's all very well to speak of putting batteries or gigantic capacitors underneath the turbines to store the juice in time of high winds to be metered out slowly when demand is high, but that also multiplies the construction costs severalfold--and the capacity of the batteries isn't infinite.

In a conventional power plant, it's a simple matter to crank up the output at need.  With wind, that's somewhere between difficult and impossible.

>>13
Not to mention the fact that... ahem, and forgive me - "studies have shown" that wind systems large enough to make a dent would have an impact on the weather, and I think we've fucked with that quite enough already.

Wind mills are an industrial asset, they are still used for the continuous pumping of water in remote areas and agricultural purposes aswell as producing electricity in remote areas. However we will not properly develop their usage on a large scale as wind farms if they are not exposed to market forces, a windmill is not a permanent energy source, it needs maintenance and new parts, storm damage of vandalism over the decades may mean it will need to be replaced entirely, in a post fossil fuel economy this may not be economical as the production of steel and machinery becomes probitively expensive.

We should only be subsidised research, not the construction of wind farms themselves, this will give energy corporations the incentive to develop cheap manufacturing and maintenance processes that will be more valuable in the future than the wind farms we construct now.

Wind power is an industrial asset, they are still used for the continuous pumping of water aswell as producing electricity in remote areas. However we will not properly develop their usage on a large scale as wind farms if they are not exposed to market forces since suppliers and consumers must adapt to a harsh economic climate in order for it to be economical in the future. A windmill is not a permanent energy source, it needs maintenance and new parts, storm damage, human error or vandalism over the decades may mean it will need to be replaced entirely, in a post fossil fuel economy this may not be economical as the production of steel and machinery becomes prohibitively expensive.

We should only be subsidising research, not the construction of wind farms themselves, this will give energy corporations the incentive to develop cheap manufacturing, maintenance and energy production processes that will be more valuable in the future than the wind farms we construct now.

>>as the production of steel and machinery becomes probitively expensive.

Welcome to the new Stone Age, courtesy of Greenpeace and Earth First.

>>17
And the inreasing scarcity of fossil fuels. Fossil coal's not going anywhere for 300 years though.