Not when carnists like you support such a violent, oppressive, disturbing and disgusting ideology. You rape people like us, disable them and terrorise them until the very end - when you egregiously murder them. Have a fucking ounce of compassion you monstrous piece of shit.
I do think it’s important to remember that carnists rape people, not animals.
So convince them animals are deserving of personhood without saying "they're raping you" that's just needless edgy shit that's going to turn people off especially people who have dealt with sexual violence personally. IMO this is a bad take.
Trying to convince a carnist that animals are deserving of personhood only serves to obfuscate what a carnist is actually doing to them. I should have content warned the post. I shouldn’t need to change my language just because the victim is a non human person. I wouldn’t be trying to convince Harvey Weinstein, for example, that his victims are deserving of personhood. That only serves to obfuscate the crime. That won’t bring the victims justice.
I made a mistake for not content warning this post. I won’t make the same mistake twice. It was in poor taste not to content warn. I’m trying to take accountability for that by editing it now - and not making the same mistake in the future.
I won’t change my language though. It isn’t edgy shit to call the behaviours of carnists what it is.
You're missing the forest for the trees here. Convincing people that animals deserve personhood should be a priority not a distraction.
Which is exactly what I’m doing by treating them as victims. Of course - I can always take the route of affirming sentience as base value in humans, then extending that. But I’m also giving them personhood through my language. Instead of calling them “non human animals”, “animals”, “non human beings”, “livestock”, “cows, pigs etc.”, I’m calling them “people” or “non human people”. Then instead of a passive construction of “people are being victimised”, I’m simply saying “carnists victimise people (both non human people, and human people)”, to hold carnists to account. I think anything else is obfuscation.
CW rape
`We wouldn’t say “humans are being sexually violent against humans”, we would say “humans are raping humans”. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use different language for non human victims - because that would simply other them (and create a hierarchy with humanity on top) - when the core thing is, in spite of them being not human and that they are different, the base value of experiencing subjectivity is the same.
deleted by creator
Sure, that is the assumption challenged by using non-othering language.
deleted by creator
No ableism, please
deleted by creator
This comm specifically has always been against baby steps and human centrism. People don't understand the scale of this crisis that afflicts literally trillions of sentient people yearly, and they're not gonna understand it if we keep acting like it's not a big deal. Neocarnism is soft denialism.
Carnists will always center themselves and their own reaction to being told what's happening as an excuse not to take action to stop what they're doing. Out of sight, out of mind. Carnists have short-term material motives to keep the victims of their actions out of sight and silenced.
deleted by creator
I don't think that's true. Different carnists are reached in different ways. You were probably a carnist at one point, and so was I.
There's long term material benefits to veganism and animal liberation. Solidarity is better than selfishness. Animal ag hurts us all
deleted by creator
Hardly a bad take. That’s what they’re doing. And I kind of think I get a free pass here because I dealt with sexual violence personally, as a child, too.
Okay but neither you or I are qualified to determine whether this is a bad take. I get a bad feeling about it, you think it's right, the rest is up for others to decide. Edited my above comment to reflect this
As the qualified take-assessing expert, I judge Maask's take as good