Really ridiculous how vegans think this will put off any meat eaters from eating meat.
Actually it’s having the opposite effect, it just infuriates people and makes them hungry.
I myself am hungry for a chicken now!
So what combination of words should vegans be using to convince meateaters to stop consuming meat?
I see a lot of people telling vegans what not to say, but not a lot about what they should be saying to make their case.
What would you find to be a convincing argument?
You don’t. If you treat being vegan like a religion where you feel the need to convert everyone else then you’re in a cult. A normal person would just present their case, make their arguments, and live their life based on their principles… That’s it. If someone is convinced that you’re correct then they’ll adopt your values on their own, and if they don’t you just have to accept their choice and move on.
unbiased, true statements. it may not be convincing, but falsehood and hyperbole isn’t a good way to convince anyone of anything.
I get downvoted a lot by .worlders even for unbiased true statements, but I still think it’s the most effective for convincing debatebros. Irl the most effective is just having good meals that happen to be vegan, so people around you see it’s really not that hard and you can still eat good food.
I wish political campaigners, propagandists, and advertisers would adhere to this!
You could start by talking like a civilized person without insults and maybe use facts, research, philosophy, etc. to explain your position why eating meat is bad and have a civilized debate.
This isn’t going to be popular but meat eaters need to put their ego aside and hear what those who speak out against animal torture are trying to tell them. Factory farmed meat is anything but civilized.
“need to put their ego aside” - pot, kettle. The more compelling arguments I have seen have to do with the amounts consumed being both unhealthy and not economic.
Self righteous egotistical fools just make me disregard their position.
My feelings aren’t hurt. Over the past 30 years I’d heard it all. It’s time for you to understand that all the rape, torture, and death are unnecessary. Call me whatever name you want, I really don’t care.
Yes but what people should do and what they will respond to are two different things
Maybe just stop trying to push your personal beliefs on everyone else?
So I should never try to persuade anyone of anything?
How can one change society if we aren’t allowed to challenge people’s beliefs? I’m glad that people have confronted others on the various inequalities and injustices in society in order to effect change, rather than just going “welp, that’s just how things are!”
It looks like my techniques work at least sometimes because I’ve helped many people go vegetarian and a couple go vegan.
That double down is making me so hungry! I wish they still had them.
if you are infuriated by somebody pointing out the cruelties of your actions then i think that is a reflection of you, not them.
Let’s see how you like being called names:
You skinny shitmouth, go eat some cabbage grown in cow shit.
Good one. I’ll respond with “enjoy your colostomy bag, you barbaric animal torturer”.
Weird that this didn’t affect me or want to change my diet at all.
deleted by creator
Congratulations … you got the point of the first comment.
I think YOU are missing the point of the first comment and MY point.
They said that they are infuriated by people name-calling them, somebody said “see how you like it” and… I wasn’t infuriated.
Insane that anti-vegan people (who have generally fallen for right-wing propaganda) are so bandwagony that you are getting upvoted for being so very incorrect.
No. They’re not. They made an example to set you up, and you walked right into it. Making their point for them.
Talking shit about someone’s diet isn’t going to make them change their diet.
The only insane part is that you view everyone that isn’t a vegan as “anti-vegan”. Or that everyone that disagrees with you is “anti-vegan”
I don’t think the cashier at my local grocery store is “anti-boardgames” just because they feel annoyed when someone tries to pay with monopoly money.
I don’t think the cashier at my local grocery store is “anti-boardgames” just because they feel annoyed when someone tries to pay with monopoly money.
While I agree that there is a difference between non-vegan and anti-vegan, this is a very strained analogy.
Yep, if namecalling is what prevents someone from going vegan…no it isn’t. It is just an excuse and they were going to continue eating meat with or without the namecalling.
It’s not the name calling it’s that it basically shuts down anyone actually considering it because that’s how humans work. If you say you are bad for doing this the most common reactions are to become defensive or ignore it, both of which are counterproductive to someone changing their mind.
Nah, op is correct. Also no one mentioned right-wing stuff…or politics at all. Why would you bring that up and imply op is right-wing?
not implying they are right wing at all, that wasn’t my intention. Try re-reading it.
Nah, op is correct.
So the first comment in this thread did not say they were infuriated? Is that not what I was originally replying to? Is that not why I said I was unbothered by namecalling, to point out the fact that it is not infuriating?
“Bloodmouth carnist food?” What an idiot.
Digging into the morality of mundane things, and their counterpoints.
I think it’s totally natural for humans to eat meat. But also definitely more moral to abstain from eating it.
Meat consumption itself might be natural, but nothing about modern animal agriculture is.
We divorced from nature quite a while ago, and in some very significant ways.
I think there is a way to create ‘ethical’ meat through giving animals good lives and having laws around the ages they can be killed, etc.
However I don’t think it’s possible due to the costs and land required to do this, so unfortunately, I don’t think there is any ethical way to produce meat these days. The most ethical is probably hunting to prevent overpopulation.
The amount of meat people want to eat necessitates factory farming and that is a great breeding ground for animal-borne disease. Meat also concentrates heavy metals in the animal’s diet. The quantity of meat consumption is making us sick.
Even if humans reduced their meat consumption drastically it would be even more inefficient to produce meat ethically – either that, or the prices of meat would rise astronomically which is probably a good thing, making it more of a luxury item.
The process of eating meat? Sure.
The way people in the modern world obtain meat? Nothing natural about that.If I was made to hunt my game, or kill the animal I raised, I’d never eat meat.
Oh man, I’ve tried venison several times growing up in the sticks. It’s gross. Most people I know made it into jerky or sausage or something to make it taste better.
Because you live in a very comfortable world with so many options, you don’t even know what to choose sometimes.
I would. If I eat meat I am responsible for taking that animals life, whether or not it’s me that performs the killing blow. At least I know if I do it, it will be as quick and painless as I am able to make it. In the case of hunting, I would take some comfort in knowing it lived free and not in a cramped cage in a factory farm or something. If I was able to raise my own animals, I would give them the best and happiest life I was able to give them, and also end their life as painlessly as I could manage when it was time for that.
I wouldn’t at all enjoy the act of killing, but I feel like it shows at least a little respect for the life of the animal that I am willing to take the responsibility to do it myself, precisely because it is a hard thing to do. I would never have eaten meat if I wasn’t wiling to do the killing myself.
I recently switched to a Pescetarian diet, partly so I can stop supporting factory style farming. I know it’s an anthropocentric pov but Its easier for me to kill fish and other sea creatures than land critters, but I still try to be as humane as possible when doing it.
I will never eat anything in the Dolphin, Whale, or Octopus families, which is another anthropocentric thing, and I guess it made me a hypocrite because I did eat pork and they are intelligent too. I am trying to reduce the harm I do at least.
Killing a cow I raised would be the same as killing a dog I raised.
Just because it’s “yummy” and “I feel like it”?
Seems pretty insane to me, but people be people’ing.
I don’t think it would be the same thing at all. I wouldn’t go out of my way to create an emotional bond with a critter I raised to be food. In fact im pretty sure I would intentionally not do that.
Im not saying that it might not accidentally happen, I am a softie and an animal lover. If it did I probably wouldn’t be capable of eating it.
You seem to feel pretty strongly about this, don’t you think its at least a little hypocritical to be ok with killing and eating an animal, as long as you personally aren’t delivering the killing blow? You are every bit as responsible for the deaths of the animals you eat as the person at the slaughter house.
I have no issues with people refusing to kill an animal on ethical grounds (reducing the harm from factory farming was a big consideration for the change in my diet) but you aren’t doing that.
It just seems like a weird stance to judge me for doing something you are also doing, but by proxy. If you hire someone to kill someone else, you would still get charged with murder. The same logic applies here.
Emotional bond or no, I don’t have it me to walk up to a (random or raised) animal and slit its throat. Especially when it’s raised by me.
If it was a matter of life or death - that’s a different topic. Right now, there’s no reason to eat animal meat, except for “yummy”.
The meat industry has done a “marvelous” job of disconnecring “killing” with “consuming meat”. No, I don’t feel like I’m killing the animal, because I’m not doing it.
I’m eating meat because it’s “yummy”. But that wasn’t what I said in the original comment. I said if I had to choose (which I currently don’t have to do). And I said I couldn’t kill an animal with my own hands, just because it’s tasty, because I’m not a psycho.
Apparently, I don’t have a issue when a psycho does it and delivers me the meat, of an animal I have never seen before.
I wish it wasn’t this way, and I’m trying to reduce my meat consumption (and I have, by a lot). But we don’t live in an ideal world.
Same with climate change. You know that people are already dying because of it. I’m nor directly killing the people, but they are dying because of it. And me being “comfortable” adds to climate change (even if it’s a minute addition, just like eating a Big Mac is a minute part of the killed animal)
Apparently, I don’t have a issue when a psycho does it and delivers me the meat, of an animal I have never seen before.
Unfortunately many people working in the factories are not psychopaths. The job has a really high turnaround rate and a lot of the people working there get very high rates of depression , it’s also very unsafe work
I didn’t say you killed the animals, I said people who eat meat are responsible for the deaths of the animals they consume. That’s just a fact. If people didn’t purchase tasty meat to consume, other “Psychos” wouldn’t raise them for others to consume. I understand that it’s much easier to let someone else ‘do the dirty work’, believe me I know.
As for people who kill their own meat (or your meat) being ‘psychos’ I can tell you that it’s obviously not the case. Hunting culture grew from the time when it was necessary to hunt to provide for your family, and that is the spirit that it’s carried out in today. People don’t hunt because they think it’s great fun to murder innocent creatures. It’s about providing for your family, friends, and community. I just saw a post on Facebook from my ex-BIL and he was talking about a buck he just got while hunting. It was a post thanking ‘the lord’ for the provisions.
It’s just a way of life in rural America. We don’t do it to be cruel, we do it as a way to not have to rely solely on supermarkets to provide for ourselves. If we ever do have a ‘Y2K’ style situation (and let’s be honest- that isn’t a crazy idea) knowing how to catch, clean, and cook wild game would be a valuable and sought after skill. A lot of poor people in rural areas do depend on hunting and fishing to supplement their diets.
Most hunters are (directly or indirectly) conservationists as well. It’s in their best interest to maintain a healthy and flourishing population of animals (not just game animals- web of life and all that). Hunting is strictly regulated by the state to ensure that the animals don’t become overpopulated or over hunted.
Overpopulation would quickly become a huge problem (not just for humans, but for the environment and the animals themselves) if it’s not well regulated. In fact the South has a massive problem on their hands with wild boar atm. They are an invasive species so it’s not quite the same thing, deer for example will become overpopulated very quickly.
We have (to our detriment) eliminated most or in a lot of case all natural predators for larger game animals like deer, so in order to be good stewards of the environment we have to have another way of controlling their populations. I can’t really think of a better way to do it than have people in the community do ‘the work’ for free (in fact they pay for the privilege) and filling their bellies at the same time- while also reducing our dependence on factory farms.
The analogy to climate change doesn’t really work. It’s not really individuals who are the problem there, it’s the choices giant corporations and government makes in the name of profits that are the real issue. Most people if given a choice between a lifestyle that is sustainable and responsible would choose to do so, we are just given so little choice in that regard. Not eating meat is a choice that, especially nowadays, anyone could easily accomplish.
If a new meat product showed up in grocery stores called ‘Long Pork’ that was the tastiest meat ever, but people found out that it was human flesh- would you consider the people who continued to eat the meat to be complicit in the murder of said ‘livestock’? Especially if you knew for a fact that if everyone stopped eating it- the murders would stop?
I feel the same, but I do think there’s a threshold somewhere.
Insects. I don’t want to eat those, but if I had to, my conscience wouldn’t be the problem.
Fish. It’s not my pet. I wouldn’t worry too much about eating it. Breeding fish. Maybe not so easy, but fish will eat each other any chance they get, so why shouldn’t I.
Chicken. They’re not good pets. Fucking dinosaur would eat me if it could. I don’t know if I could have a pet-like relationship to a chicken. Maybe other birds are different. I’d respect a crow or eagle enough not to hunt it.
Then there’s mammals. I agree that most of them are like dogs. I don’t want to breed or hunt pigs, cows, deer or cats. But how about rats and mice? They are a real nuisance and breed like crazy. It wouldn’t matter much to anyone if there’s a few more or less, and I surely wouldn’t pet them in the wild. However, rabbits and hares. They’re just too cute. No eating.
So, there it is. Despite loving every living being, I could still eat some mammals, some birds and anything else in the animal kingdom without remorse.
I agree. While I feel like I couldn’t kill a mouse/rat with my hands and watch it die, but I think I could make myself set a trap that kills the animal instantly out of my sight.
Very interesting point you’ve made!
natural has two different meanings.
one is the opposite of artificial.
the other is the opposite of supernatural.
everything humans do, tautologically, is artificial.
so unless you mean you think the modem meat industry employs ghosts or magic spells, it is very much “natural”
Nice, we got an “acktchually” over here.
If you want to be a part of the discussion, read and use the context.
there is no context that could change the truth of what I said
Yes, you’ve got the biggest, best truths. A lotta people tell you that your truths are the greatest of all times.
seems like you don’t want to accept the truth
Don’t care wht “seems” to you.
If the situation were reversed, chickens would eat us without a second thought.
Sometimes I feed the chickens worms or bugs I find in the garden, they go nuts! It’s a little scary.
Good people of Cyrodiil. Welcome to the arena…
I’ve seen a rooster eat a chick before, it was horrifying.
Because the chicken is incapable of acting morally. Humans should hold themselves to a higher standard.
Hah, like humans will ever do that
Congrats, you have the morality of a chicken?
Sorry best we can do is horrors beyond your comprehension. As is human tradition.
Just because we CAN do something, doesn’t mean we should. We are supposed to be superior to animals (at least according to some humans). Why are we doing what the animals do if we’re superior? Animals also rape each other and commit infanticide. Why aren’t we doing that too?
Because we’re only animals!
It’s also totally natural for humans to put those that we consider inferior into horrible death camps after all.
That is hardly the natural way of getting meat
I know, but that’s the only way regular people get meat nowadays.
Seeing what some vegetarians and vegans eat instead of meat makes me laugh. One half is exotic stuff flown in from the other side of the world at a vast expense of the environment, the other half is Ultra High Processed Food laced with chemicals most people cannot even pronounce…
What vegetarians eat instead of meat for a protein is not usually ultra processed food, though it can sometimes be. From my personal experience it usually consists of regular cooked beans. Sometimes sometimes they get fermented and processed into things like tempeh, or tofu. I suggest this is because that ultra processed stuff is expensive, beans are dirt cheap, and tofu is cheap(and delicious). The vegan athletes I know supplement their diet with vegan protein powder, but nearly all people who are serious about being athleats use protein powder.
There’s other protein sources too, if you make overnight oats with soy milk and hemp seeds (or flax seeds or nut butters) you can easily get 20+ grams of protein.
Most of the vegans I know will also eat eggs from responsibly farmed chickens, which is pretty easy to check where I live.
If you aren’t raising cows in your backyard, I have bad news for you…
“Bloodmouth” is one of my trigger words. As soon as I hear it I know the speaker is a complete fucking moron and stop listening. From that point on all I hear is mwah mwah mwah like Charlie Brown’s teacher. Feckless background noise.
Although I have to say “bloodmouth’s graveyard stomach” hits SUPER hard
It does.
I guess I’m lucky that this is the first time I’ve ever heard the term, but as of the moment- I think it’s fucking hilarious!
Not so much the word itself, but that there are actual clowns out there that say this without even a trace of humor. It’s the duality of it all.
A ridiculous person, playing at total seriousness, while saying a monumentally ridiculous thing.
That’s a standing ovation level of dipshittery.
Hold on, hold on, hold on. Did you call me a bloodmouth? BLOODMOUTH?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You fucking clown!
I’m so sorry but this is now one of my favorite new words
If they think bloodmouth is an insult they should see harvest day on my chicken farm.
It is up there with the time I heard someone call my straight male friend a “Pussy Fucker” to their face.
FUCKING GUILTY!
Bloodmouth Graveyard….
This needs to be a band, an album, a movie or a TV show!
This needs to be a band, an album, a movie AND a TV show!
Fixed it for you
As someone who tries to eat less meat in general because climate change and cows are basically giant grass eating slightly smellier dogs, I cannot take anyone who unironically uses “carnist” and “bloodmouth” seriously from that point on.
The more names you use to describe “person who eats meat” that you think are insulting and derogatory, the more people roll their eyes and move on with their planned meal.
Also when they add extraneous hyperbole to invalidate themselves.
No, there’s nothing sweet or savory about rotting meat, but it isn’t rotting, now is it?People that eat meat do not eat rotting carcasses (RFK aside) the same way vegans don’t eat rotten vegetables.
This isn’t meant to be an “achktually”, just a bit of trivia on the process of how we prepare meat.
And why, their hyperbole is actually even dumber than you think once you know the process.
After we kill an animal, it is left to hang for a couple of days depending on temperature. And it is so oxygen can interact and the meat starts to break down a bit, it decays. It’s slowly rotting. And there’s a fine balance between decay and bacteria growth. Simplified. The closer you are to that line, and the longer it can hang, the more tender it will be.
E.g. wild game is suggested to hang for at least 40 “day temperature”. So if the average temperature is 5 degrees Celcius, it needs to hang for 8 days. 5*8=40. If the average temperature is lower, it hangs for longer. It’s generally believed you need at least 2 degrees for the decay process to happen the way we want to. And if you start to reach 10 degrees, you have a much higher risk of bacteria growth. (These are in the context of average temperatures, hanging outdoors)
I don’t know the ins and outs of beef or pork, but the principle is the same. And today, I would assume all slaughter-houses have large stable rooms where the temperature and airflow is controlled down to the decimals.
So… I’d say yeah, the sight of a cut of meat, prepared in a highly controlled decay process. Is incredibly savory. Because you know it’s gonna be tender as hell!
sweet
Ummmm, rotting meat can be “sweet” due to decay as in “the sweet smell of rotting meat”. Don’t think that you should eat it when its that off, but yeah I don’t get how rotting is an insult here.
Yeah I’m basically in the same boat. I call myself a half assed vegetarian - I don’t typically buy meat for myself but if I go somewhere and meat’s already been ordered I won’t make a big fuss. I think meat is bad for the environment and cruel to the animals, and want people to care more about that, but it’s an emotional issue that needs to be handled as such.
It is annoying that some people are so emotionally invested in meat that it’s a hot button triggering topic, but that’s how it is.
Some left wing people will call the USA like “burgerland” or “ameriKKKa” and I’m just like that’s not going to win any converts. People who aren’t already firmly in your camp are going to stop listening.
Extremism definitely pushes reasonable people away from any group.
Humans are generalizers at our core. We will assume everyone in a group is like the worst member of a group and move on without a conscious thought on the matter.
So the extremism of the meat industry is pushing people away from eating meat?
I’m still waiting to see this play out.
I know you’re arguing in bad faith, but let’s pretend you’re not:
Seeing as you weren’t aware, the “default” for most cultures is meat-eating. So most people automatically start life with “us” being meat-eaters and “them” being non-meat-eaters.
I’m still going to call out meateaters for being obnoxious and pushy, and cite it as a reason that I won’t eat meat simply to illustrate how ridiculous they are being.
I don’t respect double standards and do not feel bound to them.
K
It indeed is ok. I have zero incentive to not flip the script.
Thank you for your support!
K
No the really annoying vegans make some people less sympathetic to the vegan cause
So it would follow that really annoying meat eaters make some people less interested in eating meat.
I’m going to really start leaning into this.
if you’re very passionate about something it’s easy to use strong words, and i think while it’s annoying to me it’s generally acceptable if used like this. I can’t personally develop any strong feelings about vegetarianism or veganism, but I’ve had my passionate political moments in my life (and still do sometimes) and I guess it’s kind of respect worthy, at least when I myself can see the logic of the argument or even agree to an extent.
Used to be I would get pretty frenzied when confronted with what I could fathom about capitalism, so I can empathize.
“Bloodmouth” is clearly trying to be a slur (although it’s the first time I see the term). “Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.
Words exist to convey meaning, that’s all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that’s for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.
Ugh I hate this attitude. People that say “words are just words” have never had a slur yelled inches from their face.
If words are just words, then what is hate speech?
I don’t deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like “bloodmouth”). In this particular case, “carnist” is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.
Like I said in the other thread, it’s describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. “Omnivorous” was proposed as an alternative, but it’s initially understood as “digesting plant and animal matter” in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.
There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.
Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I’m myself eating meat so I don’t want to draw parallels here.
Vocabulary has a lot to do with it, no one wants to be called a slur and they use carnist as a slur
Then what word would you like people to use for “person eating meat as part of their alimentation”? I ask in good faith, I’m really curious to know your opinion.
I don’t think that “meat-eater” is necessarily better than “carnist” 😕 Or a negative like “non-vegeterian”? A bit of a mouthful.
Omnivore is pretty neutral
Alright, that’s pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting “plant and animal matter”, but I don’t know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.
deleted by creator
“Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.
that is not what it means
Okay I had a look and, you’re right. Apparently it’s an academic word in sociology meaning “prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” So it’s not the practice, it’s the way of thinking.
Carnist is just the word for people who eat meat, it’s not vegans’ fault you decided it’s an insult. Suggest a non insulting word.
It’s a term vegans developed and marketed to label their out group.
Whenever anyone labels an out group, they are doing so to feel superior. Considering people already felt vegans have an heir of superiority, the term acts to reinforce this notion.
Vegans that use the term are not smart people. They are displaying an inability to apply logic and reasoning to move their cause forward. Indicating they did not use logic and reasoning to make their decision but rather emotions. Emotions which they then attempt to deploy in an effort to manipulate others. They do not understand that not everyone is as easily emotionally manipulated.
They will of course backfill their choice with dogma from the movement. But they do not lead with that dogma because it is not how they became one.
Why didn’t carnists come up with their own term for themselves? Vegans made up a name for themselves. If carnists come up with a term for carnists and market it, vegans will probably use it.
Omnivore?
That’s a scientific term, not a lifestyle choice
Wait, you’re the troll who insists being called drag is the same as someone trans wanting to be called s/he, aren’t you?
Yep. The one and the same. It’s unbelievable that they’re still around with the same username. The admins of their instance just don’t give a shit.
I don’t know the other user, but this is irrelevant to this conversation.
Omnivore is biological designation of the type of foods that our bodies are biologically equipped to handle. Note that “capable of eating/digesting meat” does not mean must eat meat. Animals in that category would be “obligate carnivores.”
“Meateater” is probably the more common term for someone who makes the lifestyle choice to consume animal products. But “carnist” is intended to encompass non-food uses (e.g. wearing leather). While it may be used as a pejorative by the vegan community, any term is likely to be used that way (including omnivore or meateater) when describing a group that one views with contempt.
But veganism can use leather and eat meat in the appropriate circumstances come to think of it.
Edit: just to be clear, this was something I was told by other Vegans, including in person. Roadkill or an existing carcass of an animal that dies naturally for example are fine.
No, drag’s not a troll, just an ordinary trans person with unusual pronouns. If anyone here is outraged about trans people literally just minding their own business, it isn’t drag. It would have to be someone who brought up neopronouns just to complain about them.
Everyone knows you’re a troll. The whole “drag” bit is just the “I identify as an attack helicopter” but just subtle enough so as to make it easy to pretend it’s real.
It’s absolutely amazing you’ve been able to keep this going for so long.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun
Ahhh, you are that person that misrepresents trans people and makes them look bad on purpose! You just forgot your schtick for a moment. Nevermind then, your opinion is meaningless.
Yea man, finding out that Drag is a vegan surprised no one. It’s just another moral high ground to argue with Internet strangers from to feel better about what I imagine is a very uninteresting life.
God forbid trans people talk about something other than being trans
(Well Carnivore would be meat only, Omivore is everything, Herbivore is veg only. But yeah.)
Yeah, but vegans also don’t use animal products as well (and sometimes products that may hurt animals secondarily) so it’s a descriptor for not just diet but lifestyle. And vegetarianism allows for animal byproducts but not meat, so also not omnivorous I think?
Drag:
Carnist is just the word for people who eat meat, it’s not vegans’ fault you decided it’s an insult. Suggest a non insulting word.
You:
Omnivore
Me:
(Well Carnivore would be meat only, Omivore is everything, Herbivore is veg only. But yeah.)
Were we not having a discussion on the correct word for meat eater, which would be carnivore? I’m confused
Nonetheless, -vore as a root word means devour, carni- means flesh/meat, omni- means all, and herb- means, well, herbs. These words all only describe the animal by their diet, not also their sociological choices.
wrong in every way possible
That’s not even what carnist means…
Sounds like the anti-woke sentiment of being more racist in spite, because some doesn’t like being called out for their behaviour.
Would you prefer the rational argument, that the meat industry fuels climate change and speeds up the destruction of our planet?
… they literally raised that point.
Oh wow, I am dumb. 😂
Yea reminds me of people who think it’s an epic own to say they’ll eat two steaks instead when talking to vegans. Congrats on worsening your health I guess (among other things)
My reflexive response is “no you won’t.” If they wanted 2 steaks, they were going to do so regardless.
If people were so easily manipulated, then I would start leaning heavily into reverse psychology.
What can you do. We will transcend it some day.
Until then, I’m not dying for a fish
We can transcend it today. The only thing stopping you is yourself.
The only thing stopping me is my budget, my family meals, the food markets/culture, the extra overhead of me trying to not go iron deficient with underlying risk of anemia.
I used to be pescatarian for years and I couldn’t keep up with it. It’s a lot more than “just do it”.
Ditto. I literally tried to sneakily go Vegan. Failed because I’m low on time, can’t cook for shit, my parents bullying, co-workers bullying, limited selection in this shithole country, and worst of all…it costs a fuckton here.
I don’t even want to eat meat slop every day, that is for sure. But my food choices right now is meat slop and cereal.
it really isn’t that hard at all, supplements exist for everything these days and a vegan diet is a lot cheaper than a carnist one with the rise of meat costs.
I wouldn’t say it’s hard but it is highly inconvenient and annoying. I still remember the relief of not having to nit pick over my food.
I also remember the social weight lifting of not having to announce to everyone my food choices without expecting them to be accommodating, or making them feel inadequate regardless when they couldn’t do so. I also don’t miss the side eye and the eye rolling and having to constantly explain why I was doing that while getting blank stares or superficial smiles.
It comes with a lot of baggage that supplements alone can’t fix.
I just don’t mention I’m vegan ever for these exact reasons. If I think it’ll cause a huge problem or make other people think veganism is dumb ill just eat what the person prepared, and usually just tell them I’m not a big fan of chicken/steak/whatever.
With a multivitamin which doctors recommend everyone takes anyway you don’t really have to care much about supplements. If you feel like you’re nit picking over food just get what you think looks good and avoid the meat aisle, and you’re doing better than 90% of people already. Anyone trying to gatekeep that you’re not being perfect guaranteed is also not being perfect.
Literally nothing you said contradicts what I said. It’s easy to buy a microwave hamburger for sure and others have carnist diets and don’t usually cater for vegans, that’s true. Thanks.
I’m not trying to contradict what you said. I’m elaborating on other points that you wave off. I know that buying supplements is the go-to solution for you, but I’m also not willing to do that for many reasons. My point is: yes, your solution works, but it’s annoying, inconvenient, and embarrassing to keep it up.
It’s easy to buy a microwave hamburger for sure
Why are you under the impression that we buy frozen meals? I don’t understand your point. I’m not an American who does that.
I don’t think supplements are the go-to solution, but they are a solution that exists for those that are unable to formulate a nutritious diet beyond eating steak.
I am perfectly fine with the knowledge that my stomach is a graveyard.
At most, my stomach is a funeral home.
If you eat meat and it remains permanently in your body, please seek medical attention.
It gets recycled into energy and nutrients, just like the worms recycle bodies buried in earth. So graveyard works.
Dissolve in the acids inside of meee*
Drenched in your children Rolled in your food
One of the saddest truths about aggresive vegans is that, no matter what they say or write, normal folk won’t care. Yes, we skin 'em, we fry 'em, we eat 'em. Exactly. No matter how you dress that, that’s normal. And you trying to dress it as disgusting is only making it sound more epic.
I don’t think so. In fact, I think most people are very well aware that vegans are essentially right. Inflicting suffering for personal enjoyment is something most people would reject. That’s why indifference towards veganism and vegans isn’t enough. You have to deflect the negative emotions that this would normally trigger in most people. In this respect, it’s only slightly different from MAGAs mocking deported people with Studio Ghibli memes. You turn cruelty into something funny or quirky so that it becomes bearable. This relieves the burden on those who want to cling to it.
No matter how you dress that, that’s normal
Doesn’t make it morally pure in any manner whatsoever
Really just depends on which morals you use.
People are so fucking touchy about their perceived right to eat meat without ever considering the objective realities concerning it
Edit: downvotes doing their best to prove me right
Which objective realities are that?
That mass scale factory farming is horrifically cruel. Indicative of what I’m saying that I would even need to type this.
I mean, sure. I wouldn’t call it an objective reality since you can’t really measure cruelness, but I guess we can agree. But it is something I have considered.
The reality of it is objective fact. How people feel about it is subjective, but I find it disturbing that it’s not pretty universally seen as monstrous behavior.
deleted by creator
As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.
Do you think this way of dressing it makes you sound epic?
If I thought that fish had deep meaningful personal lives in Europe and thousands of years of culture, families that love and care about them, harvesting them might cause me a moments pause, but you’re making a strawman argument. Comparing fishing to deathcamps is fucking insane.
That quote is by Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Polish Jew who fled to the USA to escape the Nazis. And he didn’t think it was insane.
I do
Well that’s because you’re drawing a false equivalence between the factory farming he criticised and a guy fishing in a lake on the weekends.
I also think comparing factory farming to the Holocaust is absurd. The Holocaust was not a vital food source for large portions of the world. I don’t like factory farming, but you and a Holocaust survivor don’t have the merit to make that equivalence in my opinion.
And please miss me with “the world doesn’t need factory farming if we all go vegan” bullshit, I eat meat and you’ll never convince me, or likely anyone not to by making such absurd arguments. It’s why nobody takes vegans seriously.
Also, how do you know a vegan marathon runner trains CrossFit?
They’ve told you.
I mean is it really that absurd? For most people in the US, meat is really not necessary. The only argument would be it’s cheaper, and the reason it’s cheaper is because it’s subsidized. I’m not going to call out the starving guy in Africa for killing a cow or farming pigs, nor the poor person buying the cheap meat. I will call out a person who could swap off meat with minimal changes still supporting the animal industry, and the people who vote for the subsidies.
I say it’s not an absurd comparison because there are some 300 million animals going through factory farming every year, where some animals don’t even have room to stand or turn around and get huge painful wounds all over their body. Same with broiler chickens basically being unable to stand and having heart attacks because their organs are basically being crushed from birth. Not to mention the people working at animal processing facilities end up scarred mentally from seeing blood and death 8 hours a day, where instead they could just be working on a normal farm. This on the scale of 300 million animals… idk like it’s maybe not the same level of brutality but the scale of the suffering is just massive.
The Holocaust was not a vital food source for large portions of the world
That’s technically correct. The Nazis did use concentration camps for slave labour to help their war economy, but slave labour was only a vital food source in other points in history. Drag thinks the Nazis deserved to lose the war, and adults who relied on slaves for food like the colonial Americans deserved to starve. And drag doesn’t draw a distinction between human slavery and animal slavery when drag says that. Drag wants to prevent suffering, and doesn’t care if it’s humans or animals who are suffering. Killing innocents to feed a predator only results in the predator getting hungry again in a few days or weeks. This is an easy trolley problem.
(one of) the problem(s) with Nazis and the Holocaust is precisely that it treated people like animals. that’s what makes it wrong.
Yes, treating anything the way humans treat animals is wrong. Isaac Bashevis Singer lived through the holocaust as a Jewish man, and learned firsthand what suffering is inflicted on the animals. He then wrote this quote.
treating anything the way humans treat animals is wrong
I doubt it.
We are animals. Simplistic in many ways many animals eat meat, and that’s ok. We do it too. We should do it much less from an environmental standpoint. Meat is good to eat, however there is nothing wrong with not eating meat. Plants feel too, not like us for sure but they communicate damage to one another.
Animals also extremely commonly rape and murder, and humans do it too. But we generally try to avoid animal instincts that cause suffering, even if many people naturally would do those things.
Yes. All of this to say, humans are animals. Thanks.
Yes and just because we do it doesn’t make it okay, no? Humans kill each other just like animals, but I’m not going to use that as a justification for killing someone.
Appeal to nature fallacy
Are you implying that people aren’t animals?
No, drag’s implying people don’t have to do something just because it’s natural. Dying of dysentery is natural, but we try to avoid that. That’s why your argument that we should eat meat because it’s natural is silly
Lynchings were normal, should we bring them back too? Normality doesn’t equal what’s right.
should we bring them back
only for people that insist on cheapening human suffering by comparing people to livestock.
deleted by creator
It is possible to care about human suffering and also animal suffering. I can say supporting factory farming is horrible, and the way we treat some people is horrible. Most sane people don’t want animals tortured, and are outraged when someone hurts their pet, but then also support factory farming because having a pig in a 3ft by 3ft cage sitting unable to move for its entire life is based actually.
you can care about them both, but you can’t do anything effective about them both simultaneously
How about a bill that removes subsidies for meat and gives subsidies to fruits and vegetables…? Now you have healthier people and less animal suffering
what bill?
nobody said that. also, “livestock” lmao
At least animals don’t create fascist dictators who threaten nuclear war every time they feel insecure about their small penises.
Not really sure why it’s taken for granted that animals are such low forms of life that being compared to them in any manner is a horrifying insult (it isn’t). And no, I’m not vegan I’m just not so brainwashed I cannot imagine empathy for animals.
being compared to them in any manner
I’m talking about a specific manner
it’s taken for granted that animals are such low forms of life
no one said that
Implying that comparing humans to “livestock”, a word whose purpose itself is to demean, is “cheapening” human life then yes that was absolutely said
the purpose of the term livestock is to differentiate between things farmers raise.
Yes. On the rich.
If you prefer a more aggressive approach, I could fry you.
If you give me a quick death by a bolt through the brain, you can do whatever you want with what’s left.
I’ll agree that factory farming is abhorrent though. Maybe try something about being locked into a small box not even large enough to turn around in, stuck next to your own filth, etc etc.
99% of meat comes from factory farms in the US. For Europe, it’s around 75%. Unless you know where the meat came from and how it treats its animals, you can safely presume the source animal was tortured for it. Calling factory farming abhorrent doesn’t mean much if you still regularly pay for it to continue.
Not sure if you missed my point or are adding onto it.
My point was that most people aren’t too turned off by the idea of eating another creature’s flesh, and the method of food preparation doesn’t really mean shit in terms of cruelty or shock value when it’s already dead/already meat rather than a living thing (unless the prep method is somehow notably wasteful of the material).
If you want to make a strong point in favor vegetarianism or veganism, it’s probably more impactful to focus on the horrors of factory farming than to suggest somethung about frying people.
Yeah, sounds horrible. 😔
I bet I would be tasty
Then we use the liquid remains of their children to coat them in crumbs.
…of Crushed plants, that we infested with LIVING FUNGUS, BURNED and them CRUSHED THEM AGAIN!
Is the fungus supposed to be Cheese? Because Yeast is a Bacterial Strain.
EDIT: Nope, turns out it is sort of a fungus. Fungus needs to learn to stay in its fuckin lane, I’m getting tired of its shit.
It’s apparently fungus, I originally wrote Bacteria, then thought about it, googled it and edited my post :P
Nope.
Was hat der Merz in Afrika vermisst?
Das selbe wie überall. Eine Seele
you sure about that?
no
Periods*
chickens don’t have periods
I fucking lost it and laughed out loud at work. I had to explain it to a co-worker. Good thing he is a fan of dark humor and not a vegan.
I’m out here sharing biology facts. what’s the joke?
The whole thread and post is the joke and the unexpected biology facts just got to me, I may be under way too much stress lately, I tend to over react.
it amazes me how kind, sweet people will suddenly go “actually I fucking love killing” as soon as you suggest the meat industry might be kinda bad
Well, the meat industry is objectively bad, but it’s not like it’s just killing for fun
I almost feel like stuffing the corpses down your gullet is worse than if it was just for fun
Eating is worse than killing for fun?
Let’s be honest, most people eat meat in the frequency and quantities that they do because they enjoy the taste. It goes well beyond amounts that may be medically beneficial.
I would consider this excess to be “for fun.”
Eating for excess is absolutely for fun, but it’s the killing part. Look i agree we eat WAY too much meat, we drastically need to cut down on our consumption for a number of reasons.
this post is trying to make it sound fun
I didn’t perceive it that way, it’s not the “killing” that is fun, but rather the response that was
It will get worse. Veganism will continue to gain popularity, especially among young people. This is because, at heart, most people are empathetic toward others and weaker beings. The question of veganism boils down to a simple question: whether or not one prefers personal enjoyment to the suffering of animals. And I am sure that this question will increasingly be answered with a “no.” Animal suffering will then become an increasingly important political issue. As a result, a lot of people who today consider themselves progressive, open-minded, and generally good people will change political sides. They will join those who already convince people on other issues (poverty, deportation, LGBTQ, etc.) that cruelty and suffering are simply part of reality and that they therefore don’t need to feel bad about it.
I’m really hoping you’re right but as a recent convert, I feel this might just be hopium. I’m fairly young and even amongst very leftie or activist circles I engage with veganism is still niche
Rising food prices might force the issue. Maybe they aren’t actually vegan, but even significant reductions in meat consumption due to economics will help normalize plant-based diets.
Mm I mean I agree just not fully, I think most people just don’t make the full connection. For most people it’s like saying to stop using your right hand, it’s causing mass suffering. The initial reaction is to say that’s just ridiculous. It’s just so normalized and ingrained, and meals are very important for a lot of people. It’s that lack of connection between what you do and the actual effects, and also just people not wanting to know (a friend i know has an idea it’s bad but specifically tries to avoid learning anything about it). So not necessarily they don’t have empathy, it’s just willingly or unknowingly not making the connection between their actions and the actual animal.
Imagine being so full of snobbish “moral superiority” that you deem animal rights a more important and immediate matter over the many problems that affect humans that haven’t been solved yet.
Maybe not more important, but something the average person has more control over.
I can’t do much to stop the genocide that my government is currently funding, but leaving animals off my plate is a fairly simple matter. Similarly, donations to animal charities can be really fucking efficient
Because of this high level of efficacy, it is indeed where I focus most of my efforts.
Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.
But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal, natural even. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.
That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.
For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.
Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
There are things that prevents us from addressing everything at the same time, the most important one being time itself, closely followed by resources available, mostly manpower and brainpower. Deciding on the best course isn’t done in a snap, it takes time to debate, time to research, time to convince, time that is not being spent on “everything else”. Sure, there can be synergies in some actions and laws, but to think that you can do one that is all-encompassing is delusional.
How important any one matter is more important “right now”, which I alluded to in my comment, also prevents addressing “everything at the same time”. Maybe the person cares about animal rights, but would much rather see time and effort being directed at something else right now, which they deem more important. “I can’t afford rent and the govt wants me to starve, why should I focus on animal rights right now?”
Good luck addressing all of the world’s injustices at the same time.
In fact, it is easier to criticize exploitation, domination, and suffering as a whole than to take the complicated detour of first restricting who is entitled to empathy and solidarity. So in a way, empathetic people make it easier for themselves. They are simply against injustice in general. And I don’t think that makes anything more complex or energy- and timeconsuming either. For the exact same reason that I have a problem with Nazis, I am also in favor of transgender people being allowed to live freely, of the means of production being socialized, and of the exploitation of animals ending: Because I find injustice and inequality wrong in general. I wonder more how people can manage this intellectual balancing act of cherry-picking here.
On the other hand, they are not alone in this. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, whom we both know today as pioneers of liberalism, made money from the slave trade. George Washington, who spoke of freedom and equality for all, owned slaves himself. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, even justified slavery philosophically. Today, this seems hypocritical to us. But back then, it was not particularly unusual, because anyone who was not white was simply one of “the others” to whom none of this applied. The othering of all non-white people was simply part of the unquestioned hegemonic worldview of the time.
But sooner or later, the same thing will happen to animals as happened to non-white people. The othering of animals, which makes the cruelty to them socially legitimate, will no longer be accepted by anyone who is not completely cold-hearted. People of the future will look back on us with horror.
Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
every minute spent on animal rights is a minute not spent helping people
This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.
But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.
Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor.
no, they must not
Then they don’t fight for a world without exploitation, domination and socially produced suffering.
Actually I just went to the store and did NOT grab the steak. Surprisingly this took me less time than going to the meat section.
and then you spent time making this comment instead of helping people end their oppression
I’m not morally obligated to help people or animals every moment of my life. I am morally obligated not to be the cause suffering I could easily prevent.
Your comment implies the same moral superiority you criticize but in the opposite direction
Not really, I’m complaining that vegans putting animal rights above human rights is a snob and “morally superior” act that they always do, not unlike religious preachers condemning prostitutes and drunkards for their sinful ways
This world, Earth, exists thanks to the chaotic nature of , well, nature. The animals who evolved here did so in a way that would allow them to survive this chaos. This world evolved monsters, some cute, some ugly, but monsters in the end.
They kill, consume…their hunger is endless.
We, Humans, are just like that too.
But unlike animals, humans have the choice not to be a monster. Some people make use of this choice, but most do not. And I think it’s worth thinking about how our society manages to inflict this suffering on animals, even though most people would refuse to inflict suffering on other beings if you asked them.
I’m going to catch lots of flak for this opinion here, but you’re absolutely right and it’s why I’m ok with deer hunters (NOT TROPHY HUNTERS!).
Cause a deer meeting its end with a bullet or arrow is so much quicker than getting too old to outrun a bear, coyotes, or mountain lion. Mountain lions especially are known for leaving them alive but paralyzed for their kittens.
I couldn’t kill bambi’s mom personally but I don’t have a problem with others doing it ethically. But anyone that brags about a whatever number point buck can fuck right off though.
I don’t eat meat (hunted or otherwise), but I don’t have an issue with responsible hunting.
I understand “responsible” is a subjective term, but my views on what is/isn’t responsible here are fairly mainstream and generally in line with best practices and legal requirements.
Vegan activists tend to consider hunting to be a low priority for reasons similar to what you’ve described. It doesn’t add much suffering overall assuming the death is quick. Instead, the focus is on the tremendous suffering involved in the meat industry.
And much like everything else in this rage bait world, those practical people don’t get enough attention. I’m not vegan, but I don’t get the random hate they get. Just said the other day here that I actually like the “impossible” line of non meat meats. But remember an article here where some dude was on a Jone 'de Arc type crusade to ban non dairy milks from being called milk.
I just find anger strange I guess.
I know. Killing within melee range is for savages or primitives.
Real advanced species kill from afar. Even better, with just the press of a button. We must learn ways to skip the unnecessary steps
I was agreeing with you. What’s with the hostility?
It’s my default state whenever it’s not the weekend u.u
Fair, holler at me tomorrow homie.
There’s a difference between killing and eating an animal and the meat industry.
It ends the conversation quickly.
Tell this idiot to read and look up the chemicals in his “vegan” food…
Last time I checked, beans, peas and lentils aren’t filled with growth hormones and puss.
I am not even a vegan but it should be fucking obvious. If you are eating KFC you have no right to complain about “the chemicals” in the food someone else eats.
Vegan food usually contains loads of dihydrogen monoxide and everyone that consumes it will die.
Vegan food usually contains loads of dihydrogen monoxide and everyone that consumes it will die.
Wow, this sounds serious. Someone should ban vegan food.
Everywhere is contaminated with it nowadays, you can’t escape it. I hear there is even loads of it in our water supply!
No, I agree, beans, peas, and lentils are (mostly) clean. An I have no issues with people getting their proteins from those. Anyone cooking from fresh basic ingredients has my full support.
But look at any commercial food, and you’ll quickly notice that for vegan/vegetarian variants, the ingredient list sounds more like a sales pitch from a chemical company. Look at cakes, sweets, chocolates as a prime example for chemical horror cabinets. And the so-called “meat replacement products” are the worst.
And, by the way, meat here is not filled with growth hormones and puss. We don’t import American “meat” here.
Companies have to speak a common language with the regulators who test the product, they can’t simply write “hand-rolled flaxen seed with almond dough” so they write up the common chemical ingredients found via testing.
E numbers are assigned to common additives (e.g. E1105 is an egg white enzyme used as a preservative, E1400 (Dextrin) is a starch thickener abundant in corn)) to allow for a standardized vocabulary so that the regulators can actually test for safe levels of these common additives.
Not sure what you are counting as “commercial” food, sounds like the sort of ultra processed stuff that is bad for you regardless of being vegan or not.
A microwave burger isn’t good for you.
Yes, I meant UP foods. And they are basically bad for anyone. What I meant is that this kind of food aimed at vegans/vegetarians is often even worse, as the ingredients that are used to replace e.g. eggs or dairy are adding a lot of entries to the ingredient list. Yes, some are just the same chemicals one would find in milk or eggs to achieve a certain effect, but some are not, and that’s where the problems start.
Followed by a pig squeal
