…Because not all environmentalists are with Greenpeace–you did know that, right? …Oh, dear.

Here’s a little test for you to try. It accomplishes two things:
1) pisses people off, and
2) measures your apparent ranking within the ideological scale
as proportional to the level of response you receive.

Here’s how it works: At an event at which you’ll be meeting new people,

skillfully work the subject of AR or environmentalism into the conversation
(most of the time, you won’t even have to–
it’ll just automatically come up in one form or another.
Typically this form is criticism..).
If someone rails against you, spouting the usual accompanied by a suspicious eyebrow raise,
“..but aren’t you with PETA/Greenpeace?” or “but global warming is a hoax! Just look at An Inconvenient Truth!“

Your response:First, recognize the antagonist’s mistakes (besides that of irking you):
assuming you’re an extremist, and that global warming is synonymous with ALL environmental topics and concerns.

Second, respond calmly; this will throw them off guard as they EXPECT you to prove yourself
vulnerable by wigging out on them.
DON’T get emotional–this is the first sign that they have you where
they want you.

Continue on pragmatically, presenting the issues in a common-sense and economical light.
That way, the antagonist will see that–GASP–not all environmentalists are crazies affiliated with Greenpeace!
IMAGINE!

Do this and you’ve done your job.;)

Proud to be a hippie snob/spoiled urbanite trend-hopper.

The sustainable market boom is not without a prominent psychology: the result of understanding the issues behind non-sustainable products, and a subsequent backlash against them.  As Caring Consumers, we communicate ethically with our dollars; the amount of money put forth to the markets we support identifies each’s prominence within our psyche.

I consider myself a Caring Consumer.  But just what, indeed, is one?  The ethical considerations put forth  often consists of the Big Three: as chocolatebar.com puts it, “Species, Habitat and Humanity”.  You don’t have to be an extremist to comprehend and desire change for more sustainable products within these areas.

So, why is it that normal Caring Consumers are sometimes faced with arrogant backlash, even from friends and/or family members?  One answer is that people like to think they’re intelligent in their own buying decisions, and a well-thought, market-supported view=threatening.  In their world, we’re touting ourselves by deeming our buying decisions as ‘ethical’, rendering theirs ‘unethical’.  This is not the case.

Naturally, it doesn’t help that to most people, supporting anything environmental or animal-rights oriented automatically guarantees ‘hippie’ or ‘tree-hugger’ status.  Now we are officially ‘hippie snobs’.

Overall, many people see ethical market trends as an loaded excuse for condemnation.  This lens guarantees our status as worse than hippie snobs–we’ve now been downgraded to a bunch of spoiled urbanite trend-hoppers starving for our next Starbucks Macchiato–and our next ‘unethical’ victim.

The need for distinction is clear within this argument: our employment of ethical buying decisions indicates that we place greater prominence on these issues within this sphere.  Meanwhile, the lack of emphasis on ethics present in others’ buying decisions does not render them as UNethical–at most, uncommitted.

How to prevent this misunderstanding?  Sometimes, it’s best to agree to disagree.  At best. it’s a learning experience just to see how quick people are to argue and try to back you into a corner.  (Unfortunately for them, my Italian heritage guarantees an adamant response should any of this occur;)).  Translation: I’ll talk–but if pushed, will give a speech.