Is there motive behind this comment other than to smear "the green movement" with a wall of text inherently hard to argue against in its massive entirety? "The

Is there motive behind this comment other than to smear "the green movement" with a wall of text inherently hard to argue against in its massive entirety? "The green movement" is in fact a vast multitude of movements, people and ideas, of which several would probably shoot each other on sight if given the chance. The reason it was opposed is certainly not that it is exceedingly bloodthirsty, inhumane or counter-productive. Like, not so long ago mining companies deemed it appropriate to mount a machine gun on a rail and slowly roll through their workers camp as a response to a worker's strike and the US government god damn firebombed an apartment block to silence two dozens lefties. But somehow, a handful assassinations by individual radicals are responsible for "rightful opposition" of this supposed single green movement? We don't discount Computer Science even though von Neuman was a fanatic intent on nuclear eradication of Japanese civilians, yet we should discount this green movement because a B-promi said idiotioc things in a lifestyle magazine? "The green movement" might not have the right idea to solve humanities problem and one may reasonably be opposed to some or even most of "their" ideas and plans, sure. But to say that this oppositions rightfully stems from the greens all being mean and dumb is facetious and bad faith.