Eco-hypocrite, frustration decreasing power!

[Grelinette]

I imagine this video has already been shown here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6r9xu_les-eco-tartuffe-nicolas-hulot_news

For my part, I do not know if it is primary negativism or an objective analysis of all these actors of ecology.

[Christophe]

Yes already passed I do not know where.

The term and idea come from "decreasing" ...

You know my opinion about them ...


Just look at who edits and writes their duck to understand that there is a "flaw" ...

I recall the dispute that we had a few years ago:
https://www.econologie.com/la-secte-econ ... -1482.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-secte-e ... vt641.html

...


2 videos that talk about decreasing or decreasing:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/envoye-spe ... t7130.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/ce-soir-ou ... t8623.html

ps: I completed the title if you don't like it you can change it.

[Ahmed]

Funny: I watched the video but the sound was not working.
Finally, it is even more eloquent without words!

It is still a great idea to use some form of "oversaturation" of the opposing message to convey a radically critical opinion.

@ Christophe:
I understand that certain militant formulations could have offended your susceptibility, but it is a too common misconception to all strong convictions for us to stop there. Rhetoric does not handle nuances and self-criticism!

Although, personally reluctant to the very concept ofeconology , I find that it is a regrettable shortcut (but which, once again, is due to the militant style) to make an overly abrupt overall judgment on people who have quite different (respectable!) opinions and who, moreover, are susceptible to evolve thanks to this fertile place of exchange.

[Obamot]

Theuh! I haven't seen a little video from the bottom of my cambrousse!

However, everything that is said is not false. What is embarrassing is the discourse which consists of putting all the actions in the same bag and making a systematic trial of intention.

I think these people are at least wrong on four points:
- their educational approach completely zero;
- the unexpected emergence of "greentech", which contradicts the discourse;
- the catastrophic effect it could have on companies that make some effort (s) and commit themselves, which could say: "ah well, bein since that's how we renounce all communication concerning our actions in favor of the environment"
- their immense contradiction, when they tell us.

"this party logic which confronts each other rather than complementing each other and which seeks to exclude itself"

While their panphlet is nothing other than a continuous confrontation, they do not seek complementarity, and all their speech is a rant of exclusion, without at any time they do not pick up something positive! (I watched everything!)

... because if it is not wrong to say that there are some who invest in a "green image" to give themselves a good conscience, it is good that they are (bad) aware of all that they still have to accomplish (it's already something ). These anti-tartuffes need the lucidity to stay grounded: reconciling development and sustainability will not happen overnight.

Because for now - they may not have realized this - but humanity is still light years away from being able to do without "development". Eluding with a stroke of the pen what has been positive by thinking that it would be possible to move forward without reconciling the balance sheet and the need for development is purely utopian and is an attitude of blocking which goes to the opposite end and does not bring strictly no progress, but potentially a lot of blockages.

It is a somewhat selfish approach that flatters their own speech (only they can be "right") and makes them wear blinkers.

And it's a shame because it prevents them from concentrating on points that move things forward (like randomly militating in favor of Désertec, or castigating the Americans who have not ratified the Kyoto protocol ...), he doesn't talk about it much. And when the speaker talks about Karl Marx, we suddenly realize that the anti-ecological discourse is there to mask political intentions, and that's not pretty-pretty ...

[sen-no-sen]

I just saw the video ... I agree with their analysis.
The latest areva ad confirms this trend.

Afterwards, criticizing is good, but proposing is better, than proposing its decreasing ones, concretely?

[Obamot]

... a new "May 68" by toasting the notebooks with Cohn Bendit and the teachers in the middle ...> vote for them?

Because to say that José Bové is on the list of "Eco-hypocrite ', that would leave us what other alternative? Them?

[Christophe]

sen-no-sen, watch the video of special envoy it will give you an idea what degrowth offers concretely as a way of life:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/envoye-spe ... t7130.html

Life in the woods, return to the caves ... for the most extremists who act but most offer above all: for the others! The tartufferie is the decrease according to their definition I believe ...

One of the last issue of their tea towel attacked Con Bendit ... who nevertheless contributed to the creation of Europe Ecology which is a great advance in political ecology and this with Eva Joly (who can make a good score in 2012 I think ) ... who was or will soon be their target too ...

@ Christophe:
I understand that certain militant formulations could have offended your susceptibility, but it is a too common misconception to all strong convictions for us to stop there. Rhetoric does not handle nuances and self-criticism!

The problem is not me. It is YOU, as a member of forums, were (and still are ...) all targeted by this defamatory accusation ...

I do not believe that it is a question of personal susceptibility ... it goes further!

But as it dates from 2005, it is a thing of the past ...(am not spiteful but I remember when I am attacked ...).

It's just to show the way of thinking of those who say they are "decreasing". Reading the subject will teach you a lot about their practices (use of pseudonyms, very courageous, attacks on everything or everyone ...).

The contempt they had when I contacted them also speaks volumes ... everything is explained there: https://www.econologie.com/forums/la-secte-e ... vt641.html

In fact I think that: decreasing = frustrated in life so they have to let off steam ... there are some who do sport them they do that!

Although, personally reluctant to the very concept ofeconology ,

Is that so? This is not what I seemed to understand in other debates with you ...

Can you develop?

[Christophe]

Because to say that José Bové is on the list of "Eco-hypocrite ', that would leave us what other alternative? Them?

+1 is the message I'm trying to get across: they shoot everyone ... a psychological release more than anything else ...

[Obamot]

Econology is the only "reasonable way" imho. I'm going to be accused of waxing pumps, but I honestly think so, let me explain.

In the progress of the "ecological awareness", which is far from perfect, it is the only effective way to go in the right direction. I think that everything that has been done (is done) and is obtained, goes much further than what they obtained with their nihilistic attitude by pretending to just defend eco-tartufferie.

Sen-no-sen sees just by asking the question: "what do they offer concretely?"

Frankly, put José Bové on the list ... they do not go with the back of the spoon ... All things considered their speech is defamatory.

On the other hand they could be very useful and much better inspired, to denounce the great rot and imposture of certain advertising messages whose objective is clearly to lure the public / the consumers ... There yes, they would be effective and useful. But are they capable of it? Aren't they too self-centered on their one way dialectic?

[Christophe]

Here:

All things considered their speech is defamatory.

Well let's see ... why change a "good" habit?