King
Edit: we need a PR shop like the DNC has to come up with these gems and spread them so that this happens more often lmao
I can just imagine a BMP painted up with Hex bears stalking a CNN crew, just waiting to discorge posters for interviews.
we need a PR shop like the DNC has to come up with these gems and spread them so that this happens more often lmao
Basically anyone who tries this gets called (and maybe is) a grifter.
We need to be more thoughtful about who's just trying to capitalize off of lefty media and who's doing lefty media because they're grasping for some way to move leftist politics forward. Someone working a media job and earning a living does not automatically make them a grifter, even if they have some takes you don't like.
Love the characterization of all the blatant cryptofash platforming that goes on in the dirtbag media class 'some takes you don't like'
Being that sort of PR shop is something places like this can accomplish. It can also be accomplished by the growing leftist media ecosystem and by elected officials.
A lot of that can be separated from good talking points like "bombing Syria is pretty expensive for a guy who owes me $2000," and some struggle sessions are ultimately constructive.
For instance, it's useful to have a conversation about how we should talk about anti-imperialism in the context of (1) Americans who don't give a shit about foreign countries and (2) Americans who do give a shit about made up stuff like deficit watching.
Where struggle sessions pop up will always be amusing. And as argumentative as they get, I think we're still more decent to each other than almost any other comparable forum.
One thing that I loved right from the start, that I still see, and that I hope to continue seeing, is people not holding grudges against other users from thread to thread or day to day. People are pretty good at not turning even a sharp disagreement on one topic into a running vendetta, which happens a fair amount elsewhere.
Good news! We've also forked the fishing slap fight into some sort of weird discussion about which contact sport is the worst.
This isn't twitter though, this is just a normal person with normal and valid complaints. If it was Twitter he'd be talking about some vaguely pop culture related argument that no one understands and he'd be clapping in between words.
It's cut from the clip but a moment later he begins discussing his main grievance, the cancellation of Lola Bunny.
I don't understand this lol he didn't say some deep obscure meme, he just said that the politician who promised him 2k dollars owes him 2k dollars.
The delivery alone makes me think he shit posts somewhere. I wouldn't be shocked if he's just in slightly more left socdem circles, but there's at least some influence of further left online communities in there imo.
Fishing is not a sport. It's a profession for millions of working class people in the world. I don't see how it is cruel?
Fishing, the sport, is cruel because it consists of baiting out a living being, puncturing its body with a sharp piece of metal, pulling it out of the water into the air as it suffocates, in order to take a picture of it, and then release it again.
Eating the fish is no less cruel, because people who fish often can eat food without causing harm to an animal.
Fishing as profession is cruel because it is doing the same, unnecessary harm to trillions of living beings each year, and affects our global food chain on a scale unfathomable to a normal person, exacerbating harm to the populations of entire species of fish and every animal that relies on those fish as a food source.
Any form of commercial hunting is unnecessary violence and cruelty, but fishing for sport is astoundingly so.
Fishing as profession is cruel because it is doing the same, unnecessary harm to trillions of living beings each year,
What do you propose the fishermen who survive solely from fishing do? I have been to multiple fishing villages, I don't know if there is an English term for that, and a lot of these people are living day to day in extreme poverty. Where they live they don't really have the luxury or choice to do anything else, there is no room to farm, there are only rivers. Also I don't think any of them have ever even considered the idea that fishing can be considered cruel, I don't think I could even explain the idea to them in any way that would makes sense to them.
Eating the fish is no less cruel, because people who fish often can eat food without causing harm to an animal.
Where I am from majority of the population suffer from malnutrition, specially protein deficiency, taking fish out of the diet, which is a very cheap source of protein compared to meat, would do incalculable harm to the most vulnerable people in society who live in extreme poverty. Even if you agree that harming fish is cruel, which I don't know if I do, it's not right to say people who eat fish have other choices. Many millions of them absolutely don't.
. It’s extremely frustrating as a vegan to say “hey, harvesting this particular animal product tends to have harmful outcomes” and then meat-eaters try to nitpick you by finding the most marginalized human being on earth who needs that animal product in some capacity to shame you as a privileged imperialist or something.
It's not very hard though. There's just so, so many subsistence fishers in the world. Of course it isn't good for them either that huge companies are destroying populations of fish with their massive nets. But that's the main problem, not them.
Of course it isn’t good for them either that huge companies are destroying populations of fish with their massive nets. But that’s the main problem, not them
It's literally the "you should stop using plastic straws to save the environment, sweaty." Argument, and it fucking pisses me off especially more when it's coming from someone who's far away and has literally zero clue what the material conditions are but want to dictate how others live based off of their arbitrary perceptions.
Yes I think I understand what you are saying, every argument that is made can only be fully understood within the context of the cultural experience of the person making it. And I am from what you would call a "third world" country, so when someone says fishing, I am not really thinking of the same thing that a western person is. So apologies if I misunderstood the concept entirely. That sort of mechanized and factory fishing is very rare where I am from, so I was thinking about millions of people who have been fishing for thousands of years in the many rivers of my country. I don't have the data to show it, but I am entirely certain the practice is very sustainable, since as I just mentioned these people have been doing it for thousands of years, their whole culture and custom is around fishing. They even have this very interesting collection of rhymes and songs that they pass down orally from generation to generation which contain valuable information regarding how to fish and when to catch what and stuff like that.
Poor subsistence fishermen will need some kind of alternative method of surviving/feeding themselves once we kill all life in the ocean, so I’d want to help them find other options even without the inherent cruelty of fishing.
Sorry maybe this is another cultural misunderstanding, but what you are saying sounds really callous to me. It's easy to say they have to find alternative method of survival, but how will they exactly? It's not like they are doing this for fun, it's a grueling existence, if they could do something else I am pretty certain they would be doing it already. This is the sort of statement the local capitalists make when they keep polluting the river and make fishing impossible, that these people need to find another line of work, without telling anyone what that work is exactly.
What do you propose the fishermen who survive solely from fishing do?
Be provided government jobs through programs designed to eliminate fishing as an industry, perhaps through infrastructure that would also allow their communities to get produce shipments that would alleviate their communities from needing fishing to sustain themselves.
Eliminating these people's jobs without some action to lift them out of the poverty that keeps them tied to them is not necessary.
very cheap source of protein compared to meat,
Fish is meat, and phasing out the consumption and stripping of fish from our oceans and waterways should also come with government assistance to provide those people with an alternative nutritional food source, which we have an abundance of but currently feed to the farmed animals to cultivate meat.
Be provided government jobs through programs designed to eliminate fishing as an industry...
Fish is meat, and phasing out the consumption and stripping of fish from our government assistance to provide those people with an alternative nutritional food source
This would be great of course, but the problem is capitalist governments don't really care about their people, and these people, thanks to their poverty are completely alienated from the political process, they have no voice, they have no power, they cannot change the government.
Luckily a capitalist government is unlikely to make the move of banning all fishing, so there wouldn't be a situation where we do one without the other.
I'd say focusing on lifting people from poverty would always be the priority as a government moves left, so by the time we got to addressing animal rights and ecological damage we'd have given these people a viable alternative in their communities.
There's a clear difference between living off the land out of necessity and fishing as a leisure activity.
Any form of commercial hunting is unnecessary violence and cruelty
let's just be clear, eating meat from the store entails more violence and cruelty than hunting an animal that roams free for eleven months of the year.
eating meat from the store entails more violence and cruelty than hunting an animal that roams free for eleven months of the year.
I would be surprised if someone to make the statement I did would argue against this.
Any kind of slaughter of a living being, or imprisonment to exploit it for some resource, is cruelty.
I hope you don't think my life has as much value as that of a fish?
There's no argument, I am just trying to understand everyone's perspective. Surely it's ok for a human to eat a fish for survival?
Wtf?
I am up on my traditional lands that my family can recall inhabiting long before any colonizers showed up. I know the exact spot where our family has been fishing literally since time immemorial and I don't do it for sport?
All your responses on this thread I just came across seem really tone-deaf and pretty close to peak 'making up a guy online to be mad at' given how little you had to go off of from my comment.
Colonizers tried to get us to stop fishing and colonizers will be the reason global fish stocks and environments disappear. Meanwhile, I run fish-management and hatchery programs and only take a few dozen out of the water every year, mostly to feed my family and friends.
Go off king, but find some way to do it better.
Most people are not minority native groups living on traditional lands. I hope that's understandable that when I reference sport fishing by the guy in the video I'm not talking about an Inuit tribe.
Well good for that guy and for you missing the point of my post, just riffing on the BBQ classic.
You also don't say anything about who you are directing the comment to when talking to me, I don't know anything about the clip other than the quote he said in it, so it reads like a direct response to me, because that's all you're framing it as.
You need to be better at providing context and ramping up discussion in a personable way, rather than sounding so insufferable so quickly.
Also, inuit don't have tribes my dude.
I think i recall you from the old sub, for exactly this same reason.
"Most people are not minority native groups living on traditional lands. I hope that’s understandable ... " lol you're such a dweeb, thanks for giving the impolite dumdum explanation to an indigenous person you dragged into your struggle session for no reason.
The context, hopefully, is at the top of your webpage given the thread we are in.
It was not meant as an attack on you are your culture, as I can't possibly know you or those things.
I did not use this name on the old sub, you may just be arguing unnecessarily with multiple people.
I did not use this name on the old sub, you may just be arguing unnecessarily with multiple people.
I didn't say I remember your name, I am saying I think I recall your stilted 'well ackshually statistically most people aren't subsistence hunters, sweaty' discussion style where I am used as a jump-off for first world veganism and shaming in a topic that was never really about the extremes suddenly being argued against.
The context for this thread is some guy out ice fishing. I didn't know he was sport fishing on the ice. The context for my post is me just talking about fishing in general, then you jumping off on a thing I was not directly referencing.
If you made your own comment it makes sense, otherwise, if you frame your response as one directed at me without clarification, it is no surprise I feel like it's directed at me.
To be clear, I did not use you or your culture as a jump-off point for first world veganism. I could not know your culture, you just said "I just wanna fish!"
If anything is sweaty, it's making an issue out of an identity or cultural attack where there was none.
I think the "most people aren't in a survival situation where they need to hunt" is a very common argument against hunting, it's the one I see brought up most often, so you probably just run into a lot because you actually are in a survival situation.
Next time I'll just comment it separately, had no intent to attack you as an individual.
I really don't think even random white people throwing a pole in the water holds a candle to businesses blasting the fuck out of fish stocks.
How did you even get that out of this? That's like someone complaining about domestic child abuse and replying, "ah but I really don't that compares to child slavery in India."
It's really not like that at all. The cruelty of the sport really doesn't go away if it's helping marginalized groups, and I think if the cruelty was really the prime motivator here, there would be some kind of an acknowledgement that it's good not to fuck with natives right now, but that ultimately you'd like, force veganism on them or whatever, once the conditions become non-abusive. But just flatly supporting native fisheries means the resource depletion rate seems like it's part of the equation there.
Looks like you do mention that somewhere down in these threads, so cool. But that's the context there.
Most people are not minority native groups living on traditional lands.
Most people don't fish.
You didn't specify the states. It's still legal in Spain and Portugal. Shit I think cockfighting is still legal in many SE Asian nations like Thailand.
Like I get where you're coming form but if you're going to throw around absolutes like "most cruel legal human sport" you should be more specific in your language
I mean, if we're truly going for "cruelest" I'd put boxing farther up on the list. That fish is going to be dead in a few minutes, but some poor kid with TBI is going to suffer for decades.
Football has gotta be way up there for those reasons. Far more young kids grind their bodies and their brains to dust trying to find their ticket out a bad situation. Less incentive for that in boxing/other martial arts as it's less popular and makes you less money. Still though, as someone who has competed extensively in combat sports, it's super fucked up to have children taking part in something like boxing that can genuinely cripple your mind for the rest of your life. The number of helicopter parents trying to force their crying kid back onto wrestling mats I've seen has really soured my experience with these sports
On an individual basis, boxing/MMA is arguably worse. Football's horrible for the sheer volume of it. Literally hundreds of thousands of young people getting chewed up and spit out, so we can confidentially tell ourselves Tom Brady is empirically the best ball-throwing guy in the country.
The number of helicopter parents trying to force their crying kid back onto wrestling mats I’ve seen has really soured my experience with these sports
I did a few Tae-Kwon-Do tournaments growing up, and the nicest thing my mother every did was tell me "I'm not signing you up for that again." Didn't suffer anything worse than getting run off the mat, and I was horribly ashamed of myself, but she didn't bat an eye or give a shit. Just insisted its not worth my health and pointed me towards soccer instead.
I just assume we're working off of the states because we're in a thread discussing American politics and American people fishing.
^ there should be an award , for the most edgies of edgy edgy edglord talk...
then you would finally be rewarded for your efforts...
Yes, edgelords often go around talking about *checks notes* how animal cruelty is bad.
we shouldn't be droppin' bombs on another country cuz itzz expensive, typical American style DSA leftist. How about Murica stop dropping bombs and killing poor brown folks.
Oh my god. It was a joke making fun US priorities not a manifesto.
Yea, it's a 15 second clip not a complete platform
He's making a joke about having unlimited funding for the military and being stingy with regular people
Lol you can always count on bummy online leftists to pick apart (pure conjecture) the like one instance in the past fuckin decade where CNN shows a few seconds of someone having an actual good opinion. But alas, you're right. Clearly this man hates brown people and just wants his bag.
Should've just pulled a leftist meme with 10,000 words out of his pocket and held it in front of the camera.
Eh. He does not actually think the main problem with blasting Syrian children is the dollar cost.
It's just that our political discourse is so poisonous that there's kind of a need to address or pre-empt fiscal arguments because they CONSISTENTLY appear in the most BIZARRE situations. The point is that a neoliberal can't really say much to defend murdering Syrians, and they can't say "the money just doesn't exist!" because we're currently murdering Syrians.
Yeah I know it's fucked up but it's not to be taken at its face. I do agree there should be more deliberate talk of the pure evil of it, but in this scenario it's actually better sometimes to let the neoliberal stop themselves at the unspoken argument of "it's a big stupid George Bush style quagmire war, as opposed to a smart lib war" - instead of letting them try to nitpick like, oh but don't you know we're trying to target ISIS militants and blah blah blah
good point but CNN would never air someone thinking brown people shouldn't be regularly massacred just because they have rights or something
we shouldn’t be droppin’ bombs on another country cuz itzz expensive, typical American style DSA leftist.
Some guy out ice-fishing: "Weird how we can't afford to take care of our own people, but we always have money to kill foreigners."
RadLib on Chapo.chat: "The DSA is cool with mass murder so long as its done on the cheap."
You see this pattern with most "social imperialist" criticisms.
Idk pretty sure he just came up with a clever way to bring up Biden’s hawkish foreign policy and his shit domestic policy in one sentence.
