Yes, you’re right, Earth First was not a good example for the general group of militant environmentalists. Generally speaking, there are still some militant radical environmentalist groups out there like ELF/ALF that engage in direct destructive action against their targets, though.
1 Like
I believe we are now in the reeds.
7 Likes
How vibrant are fish in lube?
10 Likes
I tried forking that discussion to another topic (as a courtesy, you know, to avoid derailing this one) but mods deleted it.
Why is it my responsibility to list who they are? I don’t know. There’s me, but I don’t meet many others. My original comment was a reply to someone else.
Just once, I’d like to be able to make comments that people don’t turn into a derail every time.
1 Like
I’d answer that but I don’t want @jlw to chuck me out of here. 
2 Likes
Sure. There are the sea shepherds. They’re unarmed.
And ELF… uh… they’re the ones that burn car dealerships, right? Any shootings or menacings?
It’s a tired trope, is all. I’ve been a radical environmentalist for 25 years, have yet to meet anthing more than a monnkeywrencher, and they’re all smart enough to never work in groups larger than three.
And they’re not menacing anyone.
6 Likes
Maybe you should spout less bullshit.
2 Likes
We don’t know what you’re talking about. By leaving things ultra-abstract it’s all very loose and open, so everyone’s going to fill in their preconceptions into the void and we’ll all be talking about different things and become really frustrated. Nailing things down to something concrete allows everyone to understand what you mean. Not sure if that’s a “responsibility,” but it is nice to help everyone else understand what you’re trying to express.
8 Likes
6 Likes
Hey I’m not criticizing their actions, only saying that some groups sometimes use tactics of direct destructive action (against property, not people) which is close enough to fit the label “militant.” (I don’t always disagree with them either, and personally didn’t have a problem with the way tree spiking was done - they told the logging companies where they’d done it, it was the bastards in management who were putting workers in harm’s way by logging there anyway.)
it is what or who they are.
But your changing the very question… hahahah, typical. And i mean that when asked a direct WHO are you talking about, you respond you don’t know WHY?
Truly, how do people not innately know to stay a step ahead of your subconscious defenses? What is it about them every time? them them them. I hear ya.
4 Likes
stop. just stop while I still respect you. There is no militant left to compare with Y’all Qaeda, no matter how broad a brush you use.
2 Likes
I’ll stop, but note that I fully agree that there’s no appropriate comparison between Y’all Qaeda and radical environmentalists (who I sometimes support/generally sympathize with) or other radical left movements in the US. The discussion was about something else, but was a turgid confused mess that deserves to end.
2 Likes
Closest thing I can think of is the 19-month-long American Indian occupation of Alcatraz from 1969 to 1971. And those protesters were occupying abandoned land that they arguably had a legal right to reclaim under the treaty of Fort Laramie.
3 Likes
Wor? Yes, it was a TYPO. I fixed it.
I already explained that I was not talking about anybody specific! Why is that a problem? I was responding to this post:
Which also deals in very general categories. So I made a comment in passing about how there are more than two sides to an issue. But I notice that they aren’t being harangued about who exactly they are talking about.
As you are aware, I did try forking this off to a separate discussion, because it was not my intention to derail this topic into being about radical leftist political philosophies or groups. It was just a spontaneous comment. And when I tried to give it its own space as a courtesy to people here, they had it erased. And if I keep discussing it here, they will complain about that.
Defenses against what, exactly?
People can compare whatever they like. The original post I copied above was about inspiration versus laughter. Why not both? Direct action can inspire militant leftists - as a category, whoever they are - to direct actions themselves which sucks less than what these clowns are doing. I don’t care if you agree or disagree with it. Persuasion is lame. Just try to get over my comment being some big controversy or difficult-to-parse concept, when it doesn’t need to be, and that was not what was intended.
Personal problem much? If you dislike what I said or disagree, you are free to simply and politely say so. Or ignore what I said entirely.
I had thought of the same thing – and that was a non-violent occupation intending to live on the land. I do not believe they took the Island with force and then started to look through old files to try Federal employees for “crimes.”
7 Likes
also disempowered minorities, and further, they were in the middle of a major international harbor with heavy civilian and military traffic.
I agree though, that’s the closest comparison I could come up with too.
Maybe treesitters? But when have they felt compelled to sit on protected land?
2 Likes
Thank you for mansplaining my options. I have fookin tried m8. You’re oblivious to the former, and seem to want the latter very much.
The ‘militant left’ is a bullshit conception. Right up there with ‘reefer madness’, ‘lazy mexicans’, and ‘pinko commies’.
And the luck dragon has been feeding on you today. Maybe not the high horse to be giving politeness lessons from?
2 Likes
Agreed! It is as relevant as the red menace and other vague threats to the patriarchy.
Oh look, REEDS!!
2 Likes
Really? This from someone who would likely deconstruct beyond recognition such a notion demand from other commenters here?
Not to invite such an unconstructive detour into yet another bank of reeds, but really, what would be so terrible about disagreement expressed here in a way that isn’t “polite”? And whose standard of politeness should we follow here? And why should it (as you imply) be yours?
(Rhetorical questions are rhetorical.)
3 Likes
