A lot of leftists are marxist-leninist, anti-sexist, LGBT+ and anti-racist. BUT, they'll tell you the dumbest right-wing arguments to justify eating animals. I get that people aren't ideal, but when you are the urban middle class of the West, there's no excuse to not be vegan. Absolutely, no, excuse, to, murder, animals. Historical materialism lets me ok people from poor/oppressed backgrounds being carnist. I would never denounce a carnist in Gaza, but the Westerners have no any excuses to abuse animals.
I get that some people just have no will, I know people can be addicted. But at least DON'T BE A JERK to vegans. Some "leftists" post propaganda about veganism like YT videos that are literally funded by oil corporations. Some "leftists" are so toxic I'd rather have a conservative as my roommate than them.
The "leftists" lie all the time. Meat, dairy, eggs and honey are luxury products available mosty to those in the imperial core. The poor countries like India, Nigeria, Uganda and North Korea eat diets closest to veganism BECAUSE plant foods are the cheapest foods, not carnist subsidized McFood.
Dealing with leftists, especially online, is draining to me. How can I be productive as a leftist and not go insane? How can I cooperate with carnists to achieve the revolution? I see no easy solution here
I am a hexabear user.
I see a post in the empoc community that I have an opinion on; I am white, I do not comment, my comrades deserve to express their opinions in peace.
I see a post in the in the anti-cishet-action community that I have an opinion on; I am straight, I do not comment, my comrades deserve to express their opinions in peace.
I see a post in the neurodiverse community that I have an opinion on; I am neurotypical, I do not comment, my comrades deserve to express their opinions in peace.
I see a post in the vegan community that I have an opinion on; I am a carnist,>TARGET LOCKED<<turns out, just shutting the hell up is good praxis a lot of the time
As someone who is black, non-binary, pansexual, neurodivergent, and vegan, this comment goes so damn hard
The poor countries like India, Nigeria, Uganda and North Korea eat diets closest to veganism BECAUSE plant foods are the cheapest foods, not carnist subsidized McFood.
This is nonsense. Yes, global South countries do eat less meat compared to first world but they aren't vegan or vegetarian. Wasn't there some statistic about 75% Indians not being vegetarian.
The reality is people get really defensive when you mention meat consumption. I do not think I can make someone not eat meat by arguing with them. Its too much of a 'treat' for people. To an extent, similar to religion, people get really defensive about that too.
Also its not just online, people irl also just as defensive.
I didn't say that more Global South people are vegan. I only said that the Global South eats less meat, meaning that meat is less accessible to non-Westerners
As long as non-vegan leftists aren't anti-vegan, I really am not too bothered by their existence, at least relatively speaking. I find the fact that anyone, regardless of political ideology, consumes animal products to be an unpleasant fact to acknowledge. Still, I think it ultimately all comes down to ignorance versus malice. When a non-vegan leftist just hasn't adequately considered veganism, it's much less bothersome to me than, like I said, when they're actively against veganism. Of all the viewpoints you could change people's views on, veganism might be the hardest because it requires a drastic move to a different way of living. To follow through with their newly acquired view that animal liberation is crucial comes with a hefty amount of changing their actions, and that can definitely make it hard to convince someone to change, especially if it's radically different from the lifestyle they're accustomed to (i.e. convincing a vegetarian who only consumes dairy every now and then to go vegan is much easier than convincing someone who eats ham and cheese omelets every morning for breakfast on top of meat in every other meal to go vegan).
It's also worth noting that people take the criticism of animal product consumption very personally. If a vegan says "Eating meat is ethically wrong," an omnivore who's never met that vegan in their life might feel personally offended because they don't want to feel ethically wrong as an individual. When I criticize carnism, it's a critique of how it's been engrained in so many of our brains, and it would be better to take that mentality out of our brains, as a society, as much as possible.
If carnists admit that you are right about your view that consuming animal products is wrong. In that case, they'll feel inclined to disagree because if they agreed with such a viewpoint, they'd either have to A) live with being a hypocrite (which is considered very shameful for a lot of people) or B) actively make lifestyle changes to veganism that they would find "too inconvenient" for them.
Dear carnists in the replies who need to debate bro every point: I hope you all get early ED from the industrially murdered sentient animals that you don't feel bad about hurting.
Edit: thank you mods for cleaning things up
Edit: thank you mods for cleaning things up
Yeah, looks like I missed this one before the mods (who were clearly on point, thank you) removed the comments of the carnist losers and trolls. I will come right out and say it: if you're a carnist in the core, you're a shitty communist. In a similar way that one would be a shitty communist if they aren't anti-imperialist. Or if they think patriarchy is just fine and not worth fighting. You have some self crit you need to do and you're either not aware enough, brave enough, principled enough, or empathetic enough (and stfu if you're about to say empathy is idealism, you're just a vulgar pseudo-materialist) to be able to do that essential self crit.
For the record, I wouldn't lump someone in as a carnist per se if they're doing their best to reduce the amount of animal abuse they are responsible for. That's an ongoing process (which is not to say an excuse to stop trying to continue to do better either). I'm mostly in agreement with Angel, who said it really well elsewhere in the thread. But if you're coming in here whining about this completely valid post, then fuck right off. You're a shitty communist.
Wishing erectile dysfunction on people is kinda cringe because it assumes that everyone who it's wished on both (a) has a penis and (b) cares about its function
So if you were truly based you'd say "unlimited alpha gal syndrome on the carnists" with a picture of Qin Shi Huangdi throwing lone star ticks at assorted clipart of middle-aged men grilling hot dogs
Not disagreeing with you, but I just assume all debate bros are cis men. I like your suggestion, though.
I definitely think that being a cis man with the experiences that entails will make somebody significantly more prone to "debate bro" behavior — that much should be obvious — but it still feels like a bit much to assume that everyone who one would personally label as a "debate bro" is going to be a cis man (with this-like anatomy and this-like sexuality to boot). One's own judgment can always be wrong, and when it is (napr. "oh, that wasn't a debate bro, that was actually just an autistic trans woman"), then you will have run into a "black swan" that you'd rather stay away from, right?
I dunno, "debate bro" is one of those terms that often makes me sarcastically go, "oh, hahah, I get it, GENDER!"... It's like, I get that the term is pointing to a broader trend or phenomenon that is 100% definitely tied to gender among other things, so I don't mind the term "debate bro" being used in an abstract way; but when it starts getting applied to real specific people and unverifiable assumptions start getting made about those people, thennnnn the term feels way too close to comfort to a term that could be used to just shame people for being annoyingly persnickety and argumentative and opinionated and narrow-minded, regardless of the reasons why and regardless of potential biases. And when this is the case, the better terms to use might be, well, "persnickety" and "argumentative" and "opinionated" and "narrow-minded", forgetting any and all unverifiable assumptions about why exactly this seems to be the referent's character.
Honestly, this even goes for ostensibly gender-neutral forms of "debate bro", like "debate perv".
The leftists in my IRL circle are often vegetarian/vegan or trying to be. Some are carnists, but zero do the anti vegan thing. I've had anti vegans come and go. The end up having wrecker sort of personalities. Like what sort of "leftist" would make anti-veganism part of their praxis.
In regards to dealing with them, I'd win the battles when it was easy, but avoid a massive struggle, as our energy is limited. If you're getting in an online battle, don't stress the individuals who debate-bro every point. Just make your point and go, and block the debate bro types. If you meet an anti-vegan leftist IRL, hold back and conserve your energy, as they'll likely get outed as a wrecker sooner or later.
I think I got all the carnists, but please let me know if I missed any.
Some "leftists" are so toxic I'd rather have a conservative as my roommate than them.
Though I will also strongly argue against making veganism or animal liberation the make-or-break issue, since I genuinely believe that there are more important matters that should be handled first, including ensuring stable food supplies for much of the world.
this argument can be used to dismiss literally any issue that isn't food insecurity. "stop complaining about transphobia, some people don't have food!"
I did deal with his point. His point was "I don't care about x because there is something I consider worse occurring." It's a shitty point. Fuck that point.
Veganism and food security go hand-in-hand, fool. Farming animals is incredibly destructive, inefficient, cruel decadence done for the pleasure of the rich while the poor go hungry. If you wanted to feed the maximum possible number of people you sure as shit would not be farming tons of grains and soy just to feed it to animals to eat. That shit's obviously stupid.
If the availability of food is more important than what the food consists of, then we must stop farming animals immediately. Didn't they teach you about energy efficiency and the food chain in elementary school?
Then what the fuck does any of that have to do with veganism ffs? Fuck off, debatebro liberal asshole. You can post your bullshit any other place on the entire internet, get the fuck out of !vegan@hexbear.net
Good, I'm not here to be polite to carnists. You're breaking the rules by posting here. Fuck off.
So the only people allowed to post here are people who are already vegan?
That is correct. You'd know this if you bothered to read the rules. Fuck off.
No one asked for your shitty carnist opinion. No one was talking to you. You are in a space where you are explicitly not allowed.
No omni apologists or carnists.
Babystepping is for libs, and we're not here to pat you on the back. Good faith questions and debate about how to fight for animal liberation are allowed.
right there on the sidebar
Oh I expect them to show up, that doesn't make it any less against the rules when they do. Honestly I prefer for them to show up, get dunked on, and get banned. I just wish they got banned from the whole site for trolling, rather than just this comm
If it makes you feel better, I was thinking you were a smug carnist before I read the comment in which you admit to being one. It's not hard to see from a comment or two that you're in here to drop the same shitty carnist arguments we've all heard before.
Stop eating animals.
how else are you supposed to get the hormones, besides drinking them straight from the vein?? There can be only one, motherfuckers!
Veganism, AFAIK, is fundamentally a question about food and consumption of it
Nope
Plant-based diet is about food. Veganism is about animals (horse riding, animal testing)
Don't think I've ever heard of vegans being principled against horseback riding before, but I'll take your word for it. Never met anyone being against animal testing from a vegan perspective before either, but again, you seem more knowledgeable than me regarding this point.
But in your view, is veganism about the right to life/freedom for animals then? Or what is veganism, if it is not about food.
Vegans aren't necessarily always in agreement since there isn't a unified vegan front yet, but taken as a principle it should be a recognition that animals don't deserve mistreatment. Animals should be recognized as living entities, same as humans. A vegan should see eating an animal as equivalent to cannibalism. Would you say refusing to be a cannibal is a type of diet?
It's not necessarily a set of restrictions on diet, but rather, the promotion of an ethical framework of how to end animal exploitation. The food thing comes up a lot because that's what most people will encounter the most. It's the most common type of animal exploitation. Vegans also refuse to wear leather or wool.
Ethical vegans would necessarily argue against horseback riding, or any other sort of animal husbandry. Some vegans are so against animal husbandry they'll refuse to eat crops grown through the manipulation of bees, like some avocados.
I try my best. I hope I helped. Thank you for interacting in good faith and trying to learn.
Read the sidebar. Literally the first stated rule is:
No plant-based diet bullshit or promotion of plant-based capitalism. Veganism isn't about you, it's about historical materialist anti-speciesism, anti-racist animalization, and animal liberation. Ethical vegans only.
Veganism is not environmentalism. Veganism is about not stabbing a pig when you can eat rice instead. Veganism is strictly about animals, plant-based diet is about food
I'm vegan but not because of the environment. It's because animals shouldn't be murdered and exploited
I'd make the case that both can be true. My personal veganism is intrinsically tied to both environmentalism and the ethical treatment of animals. We can't treat animals ethically if we don't have a stable environment.
I'm in a Telegram server that's otherwise very queer and very radical, but when veganism gets brought up (and boy do they love to bring it up like it's the biggest deal in the world right now) it's always some upsettingly reactionary meme that looks indistinguishable from a 2010 4chan meme about ugly whiny feminists. And I know I can't say jack shit because it's either have friends/contacts or be ostracized for pushingback on reactionary shite. 🙃 I don't even care what personal choices they make, but damn they could atleast update their talkin points to something post GamerGate level reactionary shite. Other than that the hardest part about veganism isn't that I'm so used to eating certain things it's that you really have to learn to cook and prepare your own meals a lot more with veganism, there aren't as many prepackaged options I can rely on when I'm too depressed or don't have the spoons to cook.
As with all reactionary positions among allies or comrades, we must envision how to build a world in which they are abolished through practice and consciousness.
This is not just because we have duties as socialists or whatever, but because it's the only way we can, as individuals, practically organize without developing misanthropy. You won't just find carnist socialists out there repeating absurd reactionary talking points and reverting to bullying behavior to punch right on this. It's also not the only time you'll find people, including socialists, draping themselves in an identity in order to deflect from a criticism. Socialists, particularly Western leftists, are also pissbabies that fall apart during basic disagreements, though luckily more and more are developing the skill of patience and seeking understanding.
So, to move past it, you have to focus less on the reactionary they are (on a given topic) and instead on their capacity to eventually change or to indirectly help us build by putting more people into the pipeline.
For a non-vegan example, there are many racist socialists out there, having absorbed the base level casual racism of their societies as well as any personal peculiarities. You actually can't operate as a socialist in the West without contending with this. If you made your org truly antiracist in the sense that you purged everyone holding onto any casually racist views, you'd no longer have organizations at all. There is casual racism in black socialist groups, in indigenous groups, in South Asian groups. Much of it internalized. If we couldn't handle that racism and try to correct it, we would have no organizations at all.
I would recommend getting vegan comrades so that you can have a safe place to retreat. When you run out of steam fighting with reactionary sentiment, they can be a way to recharge. They will also be how you win people over. One person saying veganism is good is just a person with the right opinion. A small group is an organization that can recruit and influence.
Yeah, it's some thing, isn't it? It's like, someone should be able to recognize an evil act for what it is, instead of pulling this "actually veganism is about environmentalism" or "we should forget about veganism and focus on other issues" or "the evil of carnism is merely hyperbole" like I'm seeing in the comments under this post — no, carnists should just think, "I am doing a bad thing right now, I should not do this, why am I doing this instead of doing the better action?". No "that huuuuurts!!! >:(((" should be heard from a carnist whenever someone calls thon out on sy nonsense, even when vegans' critiques are very harsh — as they rightfully should be — rather we should only hear, "Yeah, I could and should do better". Tolerance of rightful criticism is a show of real virtue and strength of character that all self-described leftists should aspire to.
The problem as I see it is that many people are still to some extent hung up on a very sort of unproductive, non-materialist framework of morality. They to some extent still believe that committing an evil act gives them an evil "essence" — therefore if they believe themselves to have a fundamentally good essence, as most people would (who wants to see itself as evil?), then this belief in a "good essence" is overpowering enough to make them redefine what an evil act even is, just so that they don't need to confront their own immorality. We call this "cognitive dissonance". It's pure and simple liberalism and individualist thinking, which has no place in any self-purported leftist.— Attitudes towards veganism can then be reflective of the broader brainworms that someone has.
And I suppose this puts Me in an awkward spot as I continue to consume animal products regardless of fully acknowledging that it's a bad thing to do. But oh, I feel a bit Bad about it each time, and I Try To Do It Less Oft— awh shut the hell up, what am I expecting, pats on the back for doing literally less than the bare minimum‽ Lmao. Tough love is better for such a case, maybe. But at least in this framework where I can recognize evil for evil, this means that I can try to identify the barriers and the brainworms that keep me from aligning my actions with my values: it's a baseline, a foundation, far more productive than liberals flailing their little baby-arms around and crying about any questioning of their decadence. Although we must also be careful that the "barriers" don't end up becoming an excuse for getting set in immoral ways: a barrier is after all only a barrier as long as it's being pushed against.
A positive morality, one that is actively done, one that shapes the world and oneself, is always far superior to a negative morality — a passive morality where evil actions are simply temporarily redefined as good and moral whenever it's convenient.
But all this being said, I don't really have any answers for what you can do about carnist leftists, how to cooperate and be productive without going insane... One part of me says to never stop explaining, like Sankara said, and to always be uncompromisingly harsh and thorough in your critiques; another part of me says to "separate the wheat from the chaff", to identify where your mental resources are best allocated, compared to who is the biggest drain on your mental resources for the least progress. Aside from that I don't really know, someone else said to focus on your own actions in front of changing others' minds, and that sounds reasonable to me.
Edit: Damn the rules say "no omni apologists or carnists", why did I read that as "no carnist apologists"? I guess I'm not supposed to be here quite yet. Shoot.
Edit 2: Or is "no carnists" just supposed to mean "people who consume animal products and try to justify this"...? This community might like to clarify its rules more.
I'm probably being a lib by commenting here regardless, though, it's not like my opinions are at all original or important.
ah yes the weekly ragebait post to ban people you disagree with when yall are bored
It's not ragebait. They posted to c/vegan to talk to other vegans about their thoughts. If they wanted to talk to carnists they'd have posted elsewhere.
is there any capacity to critique veganism or at least some communists approach to it
absolutely doing this is how I became a vegan
in all seriousness is there any capacity to critique veganism or at least some communists approach to it that is okay?
No. Veganism is a moral baseline. I wouldn't any more entertain you "critiquing" any other moral baseline we have agreed on here, such as being against transphobia or racism or ableism. Speciesism is no different.
- Show
The two genders of veganism
(I think we're both saying the same thing, I'm just being super indirect)
ah yes the weekly ragebait post to ban people you disagree with when yall are bored
We've done it so many times, and yet the carnists keep falling for it
Plenty of capacity to critique veganism (some people forget that a critique is not just criticism but can be "friendly"). But it should be done in that friendly way, and with care, because most people attempting a critique just end up regurgitating the tired talking points that set OP off. Not only not new, but just plain unserious talking points that rely on unclear thinking and misdirection.
For example, I think critiques of veganism that analyze where its modern iterations arose are interesting. I also think critiques that look at the way in which it is treated like a health fad or trendy food choice are good critiques, though arguably these are critiques of "plant-based" rather than veganism. But at the end of the day, it's about removing the violence on animals that we actively participate in every day but can easily avoid (sans standard qualifiers like people with medical conditions). The option to easily do this has a material basis rooted in the industrial revolution and the development of capitalism.
