Athena argues that her assertions on palm oil “are based on @Greenpeace @EIA_News @ran @crresearch findings” (mirror). Yet, she sneaks in her real agenda, her #boycottpalmoil argument: if any deforestation for oil palm occurs, all palm oil must be boycotted. Dozens of tweets by Athena use the hashtag and tag or cite the above activist organisations.

Yet, tweets supporting a boycott of palm oil have been posted by neither Chain Reaction Research, Environmental Investigation Agency, Greenpeace nor Rainforest Action Network up to 2022. In fact, Greenpeace tweeted in 2018 that palm oil “can be produced without destroying rainforests” and it “*is* possible to produce palm oil sustainably, and we’re not actually encouraging a boycott“. Recently, Greenpeace stressed yet again it has “has never called for palm oil boycott” (see tweet right).

Using reports and statements by Chain Reaction Research, Environmental Investigation Agency, Greenpeace and Rainforest Action Network to argue a point they don’t support is called a fallacy of stolen concept: Athena abuses their reports, etc to falsely suggest they support her boycott of palm oil.

#careerGrifter @creativeathena* applies the fallacy of #stolenConcept: GP says it “*is* possible to produce palm oil sustainably” (wildling.rocks/greenpeace-has-never-called-for-a-palm-oil-boycott/). Don’t get groomed by ”creative” #conspiracyCatnip!

*aka @palmoildetect, @contentcatnip and – banned(!) – @athenadennis