Greenpeace is a long time contributor to keeping us on - and in some instances reverting to - oil and coal, by their feelgood-based resistance to nuclear power. They are actively harmful to Earth’s climate and environment.

Can’t talk for anyone else, but I put them in the same category as PETA.

They probably do a lot of good, but it feels like the good they do is outweighed by all the bad they do to get there.

Like kidnapping collared dogs from the streets to euthanize them (PETA), or fighting the (at the time) only realistic alternative to oil, giving all the rich oil sheiks a hard on and adding to the already bad global warming problem (Greenpeace).

I think there is no “we” and there is no “them”

It’s an arbitrary distinction between two groupings that are too broad to meaningfully judge.

There is also no point or honor in judging on its own. If you dislike Greenpeace’s approach, find another approach and devote yourself to it, put your money where your mouth is.

Activism is in reality often a choice between choosing the least worst strategy in a context where you have limited power and control, and any decision you make will alienate someone. Particularly the armchair-sitters who believe they are “in the middle” and who’s only contribution tends to be saying empty things like “I believe in their mission just not their tactics” but don’t put forward a practical strategy of their own. This applies to most activism, particularly direct action.

We think?

They are an anti science organization. They oppose nuclear power, GMOs, etc.

Do we have to be a hivemind?

i think they mean well. its hard to hate the person. the organization has made some interesting choices