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.