Good luck staying on-topic, though.

I'm sorry, my real question was: "Will people automatically go ape-shit if I make a topic about politics ?"

I regret not adding a ;) at the end of my username.

So, how 'bout those Bears, eh?

I regret not spelling walrus correctly.

If a tree falls in the woods, will greenpeace hear it?

Since greenpeace is an organization without ears (only their representatives has them), the technical correct answer is "No." If you count the representatives into the term greenpeace, the answer would be "Probably not." since it there is so much forest and so many trees, in comparison to that Greenpeace has a small staff. Finally, if it is a rhetorical question, I'd change greenpeace for a better word, it is an organization who stands for saving the nature, but it isn't a real synonym for it. Also, a tree falling in a forest doesn't mean it is a bad sign, since it could also be a natural progress (life-death-compostion ... you know, that circle).

I hope you find my answer satisfying :)

@Turst-worth maybe?

I mean look at how they reacted to this thread...

Though you may have to mute a couple of ppl (i've had Krellin muted on and of for several years now.. He was being reasonable latey, and then mute me :)

If a tree falls in the woods, and no-one except Brainbomb notices, will Brainbomb create a thread about it?

;-)

Greenpeace, saving nature. That's good, where did you hear that? : D

Common knowledge. Though ... ah, wrong thread for that. This thread should be about politics, shouldn't it? So then ...

How deep connected is greenpeace with the different party affiliates?

@Kakarroto
In what way is it common knowledge? I mean, that is to some extend what they advertise about themselves, but that is extremely far from factual. They cause extreme controversy while having so little impact one could argue they end up doing more damage to the environment by associating environmental agenda with eco-terrorism. Not to mention the indoctrination that IS might be jealous of.

And btw, if this thread would be about politics (and I don't think it was supposed to be) Greenpeace would be a perfect topic, because their agenda is purely political.

@yassem, exactly, greenpeace is trying to make protecting the environment a political issue. Instead of letting those in power exploit the environment to their heart's content.

Common knowledge is what common people (normal people, commoners, the greater part of a society, the majority) normally know/think. And the majority thinks that greenpeace is an organization that protects the nature. So in this way it is common knowledge.

@orathaic, which is a terrible thing to do. Caring about the environment is apolitical, but because of organisations like Greenpeace more and more people associate environmentalism with certain political groups, especially leftist. And this is a huge issue, because especially nowadays, in time of extreme political polarisation one can actually campaign by stressing how little he cares about the environment.
Environmentalism is about science, not politics. It shouldn't matter whether you're pro-choice or "pro-life", pro-refugees or anti-refugees, want the taxes up or down - the awareness of how fragile the world around is and how deep our impact can be should be thought as common sense to every person, mixing it up with politics and particularly eco-terrorism makes it practically impossible.

If you think not caring about the environment was invented by the people who politicized environmentalism, boy, do I have news for you.

@Kakarroto, that is an interesting assumption you make. I wanted to beat it with some survey but I cannot find any, can you help me look?

well it is based on what I've experienced in my daily life until now, so I have no scientific data to back that up. If you are interested in it though, you could fund me and I'll start one ... maybe it's better you go to an official survey team to fund this though.

Well so it's your experience against mine. So far almost every person supporting right-wing parties I've met considered Greenpeace a leftist political group, while many people supporting left-wing parties also disregard them, i.a. for their controversial eco-terrorist actions. It got to the point that whenever I try to talk about some environmental issue I start by stressing that I think Greenpeace is a bunch of nut-jobs. Gets my point across so much better.

@"Environmentalism is about science, not politics. It shouldn't matter whether you're..."

I entirely disagree. Environmental science is a science. It says 'hey look if you do this, that will happen'

Environmentalism is politics. It says 'We need to do this, because otherwise our habitat will be destroyed'

The science of the environment is neutral and doesn't tell us what we should do, at all.

And it also doesn't try to, it is only when it becomes politically active that we start to see change (of any kind). Whether that means running for office, voting green, protesting a pipeline, or lobbying for a 'green' organisation.

The fact that people simplify is a problem with people...