Talk:Extinction Rebellion

	This Global warming related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

The last section

I'm not sure why it's in criticisms? It's just recounting what one of the co-founders believe, not why what they believe is bad. Minish (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Minish is talking about this section)

If you are not sure, why not raising the issue in the Talk page first, instead of immediately deleting the section?

I think that an environmentalist movement having one of its founders openly admitting that the movements is not actually about the climate, but in reality it has to do with many other controversial things including the idea that Europeans spread evil around the world... is bad; no explanation required. Melody (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That very much reads like a strawman of this founder's positions, and even then, this still isn't an actual criticism. It's a statement of what the founder belives. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

So... is XR just «green» liquid neo-maoism with luddite characteristics?Nitrato de Chile (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Nitrato de Chile

Moonbattery

Which category of moonbattery does Extinction Rebellion fall under? --2601:199:4181:E00:5C98:2F54:C62D:2125 (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wannabe hard-greens and liquid neo-maoism with marcussian and chensawian characteristics Nitrato de Chile (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile

So none? — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"We won't fix the climate"

Where the hell is the "criticism" in this section? It's just a statement of facts, and nothing else. No critique given as to why this is somehow an unreasonable position. Hint: it's not. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm no fan of XR, but I'd agree there's no criticism in that paragraph, so I moved that segment to the "Goals" section under a subsection describing the founder's beliefs. I think it may have originally been an attempt at saying "Oh, pfft, they're not a REAL environmentalist group!" but since I'm not the original editor that put it there, I'm not sure. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Jem Bendell is now an anti-vaxxer

https://twitter.com/JKSteinberger/status/1495635137844948996 ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.62.191.210 / talk}

This page reads as overly dimissive.

I haven't really felt all too sympathetic to XR myself, but I think some of the rhetoric used in this article borders on the downright dimissive about climate change generally (if not bordering on climate denial). Like it is one thing to point out that the predicted effects of climate change may not be apocalyptic, but another thing entirely to suggest that it isn't an existential threat. The line of existential threat to humanity need not be placed as high as certain near extinction for our species in the next century, I think that misses the point entirely. And it is fine to point out that "6 billion dead" is an unsupported overstatement -- but the picture that various relevant official bodies paint does not void a bleak picture either. See: [1][2][3][4] for more details (many of these sources also seem to legitimize and specify the use of the term "existential threat" here). - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)