> 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? Th

> 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? This is a strange way of saying "Yes, you make a lot of good points I can't argue against, and you should feel bad for doing that." followed by a no true scottsman fallacy. Yes, the green movement is not perfectly homogeneous and of course they are not all the radical bomb throwing types, but they protect and defend those radical groups and don't police their own movement to try to deradicalize it or to make it more scientific. You don't see is greens condemning other greens for being too radical or insufficiently scientific. The condemnation only goes in one direction -- not being radical enough and not supporting unscientific agendas (anti-nuclear, anti-logging, pro-recycling, plastic straw bans, etc).