i'm sorry but maybe i'm not understanding - I'm not in any way defending carnism, hell im not even trying to defend the guy but the original commenter came out the gate about 'nuggies' and not digesting and chewing food and all i said is that some people have problems chewing or digesting food, which is why they might not chew or they might go for something without bones. As someone who works in healthcare and in aged care, i just thought it was worth piping up and saying that. They then responded to me, implying that I'm trying to call them ableist (which i never did in my first comment, so they're jacketing me - i am literally just trying to make sure all angles are fairly considered) and that I'm trying to insinuate they're a 'bad comrade' and then tying this to me defending carnism, which again I am not. and again i am not trying to defend this guy in any way. i get it if I misunderstood something here, but this genuinely feels like its coming at me for something im not trying to imply at all, but if I'm missing something I'm sorry
edited to add: the reason the report says 'doubling down on ableism' is because i never brought up ableism, they did, and then in the next sentence dismissed me for calling them ableist, which again I never did, which seems to imply to me that they don't care about ableism. maybe I'm wrong, I'd be willing to accept that, but again i never pulled any of these accusations first.
i'm sorry but maybe i'm not understanding - I'm not in any way defending carnism, hell im not even trying to defend the guy but the original commenter came out the gate about 'nuggies' and not digesting and chewing food and all i said is that some people have problems chewing or digesting food, which is why they might not chew or they might go for something without bones. As someone who works in healthcare and in aged care, i just thought it was worth piping up and saying that. They then responded to me, implying that I'm trying to call them ableist (which i never did in my first comment, so they're jacketing me - i am literally just trying to make sure all angles are fairly considered) and that I'm trying to insinuate they're a 'bad comrade' and then tying this to me defending carnism, which again I am not. and again i am not trying to defend this guy in any way. i get it if I misunderstood something here, but this genuinely feels like its coming at me for something im not trying to imply at all, but if I'm missing something I'm sorry
edited to add: the reason the report says 'doubling down on ableism' is because i never brought up ableism, they did, and then in the next sentence dismissed me for calling them ableist, which again I never did, which seems to imply to me that they don't care about ableism. maybe I'm wrong, I'd be willing to accept that, but again i never pulled any of these accusations first.