Chris Pratt

[prisma]

Ginger, I would definitely find other vegans to follow. My favorites (some on YouTube, but some not) are the Minimalist Baker (mostly vegan but all vegetarian), Vegan Richa, Nora Cooks Vegan (especially good for simple stuff), the Viet Vegan (definitely on YouTube), and the Korean Vegan.

The Viet Vegan recently had a post about how vegans and hunters are pitted against each other but we're really opposite sides of the same coin. We both recognize that factory farming is cruel and terrible for the environment. I had never thought about it that way but I agree. I don't like hunting, but it's more honest, so I'm not going to condemn someone for it. (Canned hunts/endangered species hunting aside.)

[Ginger]

Nov 18, 2005 14:33:27 GMT -4 prisma said:

My favorites (some on YouTube, but some not) are the Minimalist Baker (mostly vegan but all vegetarian),

I have used some of her recipes - she's great! Thanks for the other tips, I will check them out.

[royalwave]

OMG, I would be on these people's hit list. I raise chickens. Some are pets/egg layers and some are, heaven forbid, destined for my dinner plate. I've felt pretty good about the quality of life I give to all of them, with time to free range, a huge chicken run & coop, lots of treats and all-organic feed. They have all been hand raised and are super friendly. But at the end of the day, they are still poultry.

We are meat eaters in my family and I'd rather eat one of the happy, healthy birds I've raised over some factory farmed chicken any day. But according to Those Annoying Vegans I guess I'm a monster. I will admit I felt no remorse in butchering our attack rooster. He made a pretty delicious coq au vin.

Fighting actual animal cruelty is a noble cause but wow, some people take it way, way too far.

[cubanitafresca]

Nov 7, 2021 18:40:07 GMT -4 Ginger said:

An incontinent cat can make your life fucking miserable. I had a cat I saw through to the end (19 years), despite years of anxiety-driven peeing which wrecked both a floor and a $3,000 couch. Administering Prozac didn't help, and there were no actual anxieties in his life that could be remedied. Even the vet suggested euthanizing. Those are tough calls to have to make. I have no judgment for people who choose to rehome.

Well, I'm sorry but I absolutely do have judgment. Rehoming an elderly cat is a horrible traumatic thing to do to a cat. If you can't stick it out, then euthanizing the cat is far more humane. (I'm not advocating euthanizing any animal for behavior/incontinence issues - but if the animal is elderly and has health issue I do believe it's kinder than rehoming) And to rehome it to some rando on twitter when you're a known celeb is even worse. What he did was less "rehome" than dump the cat on the first weirdo who responded.

[Millis]

I also think what is getting lost here is that Anna was NOT pregnant, they were trying. They are also not a couple that would have a problem surrendering a room to an elderly cat, or hiring someone to clean up after an elderly cat. I'm 100% not a 'never re home' or 'never euthanize', but I draw the line at a celebrity being so cavalier about re homing an elderly pet and casually asking their millions of followers if anyone wants their pet as if it were a used piece of furniture. Honestly,some of his biggest problem is that he cannot keep his mouth shut. No reason to advertise you are re homing a pet, or if you do then there are better ways to do it and word it so it doesn't make you seem like a callous jackass.

[Ginger]

Dec 30, 2015 21:40:13 GMT -4 cubanitafresca said:

What he did was less "rehome" than dump the cat on the first weirdo who responded.

He didn't do that though. He did not wind up rehoming the cat through Twitter, and there's no way of knowing how he was prepared to vet people who responded to his tweet (if, indeed, he was even serious about it).

I was taught growing up that one should assume the best of people and that being judgmental is a bad quality. The social media mentality is to always assume the worst, and that passing judgment on people is a good deed, and I don't agree with either.

Mar 9, 2005 10:42:27 GMT -4 Millis said:

Honestly,some of his biggest problem is that he cannot keep his mouth shut. No reason to advertise you are re homing a pet, or if you do then there are better ways to do it and word it so it doesn't make you seem like a callous jackass.

Another aspect of social media condemnation is that no one is ever allowed to learn from their mistakes and improve. This all happened a full decade ago and the condemnation and verdict of unrepentant "animal abuser" persists. Pratt's posts are way, way, way different now. I would not characterize him as someone who is unable to shut his mouth (unlike Alec Baldwin). Pratt is really careful about what he posts now. He stopped arguing with people on Twitter. On the infrequent occasion that he posts on instagram, he posts only positive things, and yet still there is an epic shitstorm about it most of the time.

It's not because of what he's actually posting, it's because of his identity and the hatred people have for what they want to believe he stands for, despite a perpetual absence of proof.

[celerydunk]

Oh I've got some controversial views on pet adoption, but won't derail the thread except to say there is a shot early on in Guardians of the Galaxy where Pratt's character kicks an animal and that's as far as I ever got in that movie because of the whole rehoming story.

He's the worst Chris.

[Ridha]

Nov 8, 2021 18:34:31 GMT -4 Ginger said:

This all happened a full decade ago and the condemnation and verdict of unrepentant "animal abuser" persists. Pratt's posts are way, way, way different now.

On the infrequent occasion that he posts on instagram, he posts only positive things, and yet still there is an epic shitstorm about it most of the time.

It's not because of what he's actually posting, it's because of his identity and the hatred people have for what they want to believe he stands for, despite a perpetual absence of proof.

That is so true about the persistence of tags on social media. In addition there’s no nuance, and that simply irresponsible - not even from a POV of whether it’s fair to the object of that tag - but moreover what it does to language. Even if one does judge rehoming at all, or rehoming in this situation (and as this thread demonstrates, it’s a YMMV point), that is objectively (even by those who disapprove of rehoming generally and this rehoming specifically) still not animal abuse (maybe callous, maybe indifferent, although I still don’t think he was either, would have been more accurate). Yet it’s just stated so matter of factly upthread.

I’ve been speed reading old threads these last few days (having refound my way to this board after 14 years), and there a many examples of this. In the Vince Vaughn thread there are a number of references akin to “would like him but too bad he’s racist”, until one poster asked for details, and - no one had any. The general answer then became “not sure of specifics, I just had the impression it was common knowledge”. Eventually a third person gave details on how that story started and surprise surprise no racism.

In the JK Rowling thread and the coverage on Twitter and other social media forums (and certainly in the case of all 3 people the discussion here was many time more nuanced and intelligent than elsewhere), whether one agrees on her views or not, doesn’t the word phobic, if you go by it’s definition, have to be something you hate or are frightened or?

Inaccurate/unwarranted tags which are then repeated and inaccurate un-nuanced use of language, both of which Chris has fallen victim to is a real problem in these times.

[Millis]

So I did a search for WHY Chris Pratt is the worst, and... IMHO he still is. I'll skip the animal stuff, I think it more stems from the general picture he's presented over the years. He exposed himself on the Parks set (he was supposed to be wearing nude underwear but instead was nude to prank female cast mates), and while his cast mates laughed it off, he was sent a letter from the studio about consent and protocols that he found 'hilarious' and framed it. Okay, maybe he was young (though not that young), but then you add in the Hillsong crap and following people like Ben Shapiro and Dan Crenshaw and his arsenal of guns and how ridiculous it was that all his male stars came to his defense over a stupid twitter poll (not entirely his fault, but symbolic of the Hollywood patriarchy) and it paints a picture of a person that I would not like personally.

[dragonflie]

I will be honest: I appreciate this threads honest and well rounded discourse- it has really given me a more open perspective, so I appreciate you all.

One thing I feel I gotta say: we all have differing values, some think people come first, some think animals need more vocal support. I have my own life experience (as we all do!) and I can tell you: the days of people "dumping"/abandoning/neglecting animals on a large scale are nowhere near over. It still happens, all the time, to many many many animals. Kittens are dumped in trash bags in dumpsters, puppies too, animals left in fields/abandoned. People bring in their pets to be euthanized because the family doesn't want them anymore (for no other reason). I know this from volunteering at shelters and working at a vet clinic for 2 years.

Then there are the people who will do anything and everything for their pet, spend thousands, lower their own quality of life, to do what ever possible to help their animals. Most - I would guess- are somewhere in between. The thing is: animals don't have a voice. In many (most) parts of the world they are considered property. They can be abused, neglected, burned and drowned and tortured and even in the most extreme cases the MOST that might happen (if anyone is ever held responsible) is maybe a fine and a few months probation. People get neglected too- this isn't to say that doesn't happen- of course it does! I think for people who advocate for animal rights- they see the extreme abuse, neglect, torture many animals are put through on the daily- so yes- they might get triggered and be a very vocal army.

The point: Chris posted on twitter (his choice)- he was then called out and he chose to respond with a snark at cat lovers. He could have handled it a lot better. It gave off vibes of him not seeming to be the most caring cat owner... and there are a LOT of those out there too. Simple solve: Post on twitter: "We are so saddened we need to rehome our cat. We want to give her the best home possible for her final years." Then if he is called out on twitter- he can do this amazing thing that many of us do all the time- ignore trolls and move on. Or... he could post: hey you cat loving losers- our cat is shitting everywhere and if you don't get it sorry you're such losers. He decided to go with option 2. He then has to deal with those consequences. They were harsh and rash- much like his response to his followers.

In retrospect- is he an animal abuser (for that alone)- maybe not- should he have that tag associated with him... well, that's what we are discussing- and it brings light to a lot of good conversations. If he truly is now caring for animals in sanctuaries and giving them meaningful happy lives I give him all the credit for that and it is amazing!