...When only a moron would say that saving the environment or attaining peace would be a bad thing. Why do people who care about these things get negative names like tree-hugger, hippie, and feminazi? Are people really against these things or is this about something else? Just wondering.
2006-07-09 06:52:42 · 10 answers · asked by Jester 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Because a lot of people A) Take it too far and try and force others to do the same thing. It should be a choice. B) Most people who are "extremist" are hypocrites. I live in the "hippie" capital of the world and they all litter, drive SUV's and sit their and scream at me because I won't donate to their charity. So now most people use those terms as contemptuous phrases for people that go to far.
2006-07-09 07:02:35 · answer #1 · answered by Tanja J 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Tammy Bruce is the former head of the L.A division of National Organization of Women(NOW)
She wrote a book called "The New Thought Police." Read the book and you'll get a pretty good idea.
Not all these movements are really about what they say they are-some have an agenda that have little to do with, for example, women's lib. Some of the so-called "Peace Movements" are really fronts for extreme Leftist organizatons.Some "Environmentalist"groups have less to do with the environment, and more to do with seizing private property. Don't let nice sounding lables fool you. Do the homework
2006-07-09 07:50:57 · answer #2 · answered by William O 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the first answer, but let me add, the results of their campaigns have brought the oil crises, abortion on demand at taxpayers' expense, welfare systems that keep lower income levels repressed. You are right to question. Nobody wants war, but to appease offending powers is to reward offending powers for offending us. The two bombings of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut were all answered with appeasement until September 11, 2001. Now the President is considering using appeasement under political pressure to handle Kim Jong Yill in North Korea. All that will get us is more U.S. aid going to foreign countries who will still try to hurt us.
Nobody wants to exhaust our natural resources, it doesn't make good business sense to cut all the trees down, so the logging companies re-forest the clear cut areas.
The truth is the environmentalists have become addicted to political clout. Even when they've managed to change policy and collapse companies, they keep clanging the general alarm telling us about the damage we're doing to the environment and how much worse it is now than it was when they started. The truth is the levels of pollution have improved vastly over the last 50 years.
and on and on and on
2006-07-09 07:12:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think these things begin with the best of intentions. But then you get the freak element-the loud, noisy, obnoxious far far left in and serious people look at those people (like Cindy Sheehan) and roll their eyes. I am all for peace and preservation of the environment. But when you have Cindy Sheehan or Al Gore as a spokesman, you lose credibility.
As for feminists...I'm sorry, but the term feminazi fits.
2006-07-09 07:01:03 · answer #4 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the Neo-Cons hire spin doctors for immense sums to discredit them. At one time, only governments had the resources to do this. But now even moderately successful corporations can carry out propaganda wars against groups that try and make the world a better place.
2006-07-09 08:44:03 · answer #5 · answered by poecile 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
alot of people who are always caring about these sort of things get bad names because people think that those kinds of people are weird or carzy possibly insane but really all their tryign to do is are about the world and hope for a better life and the people who call them those things are for it because they may not even know the person and they jsut think about themselves and they need to lighten up and look what they got right in front of them and see that the world is a great place and try not to be so negative.
2006-07-09 06:58:09 · answer #6 · answered by pitbull_hottie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is the inseciurity of those in power - they don't want women making their own decisions, they don't want anyone interfering with their agendas just to promote peace or a cleaner environment. If it could be profitable and work to their benefit to have feminism, environmentalism, and peace, and if they could be in charge of all three, believe me they would support it instantly.
2006-07-09 09:24:20 · answer #7 · answered by ash 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your use of the adjective "good" is inappropriate. Woman's lib, environmentalism and peace are in principle good things, but they've all go way too far into bad territory at the expense of things that are much better and much more important.
2006-07-09 06:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by professionaleccentric 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because to acknowledge another organization having good ideas would require the current power structure to abdicate some of the power they already have. Since they couldn't possibly do that (they have tiny manhoods), they have to disparage others.
2006-07-09 06:58:26 · answer #9 · answered by pamspraises 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I care about these things but, all of the above are run by moron radicals who give all involved the bad rap.
2006-07-09 06:57:59 · answer #10 · answered by Boogerman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋