I don't agree with the gatekeeping of the take from a literal point of view, but rather I think that the sentiment of "It is reactionary to support exploitation and oppression, and it is hypocritical to claim that you oppose it while still continuing to support it" that leaks from it is spot on 
Also, I gotta love how someone posted two separate comments within a minute of each other just to articulate a very short point of this take being "ableist." That's 100% indicative of seething.
I also love (this time using this word unironically) that she's a fellow black vegan communist who is sick of non-vegan leftist bullshit.
why do antiveganists always sound like they think veganism (or just not eating meat) is something trendy and western that was invented like three years ago and revolves around beyond burgers
The reactionary right have re-categorised "class" in society away from economic analysis and into a cultural one. Working class becomes a vibes-based behavioural attitude based around how vulgar and unpolitically correct you are while middle and upper class who behave in a less vulgar way become the "elites" and they're the cultural enemy trying to force their ideas of behavioural norms on you. To the reactionary right these middle and upper class groups are identified through the brands they consume like Starbucks, veganism, or caring about animals or even caring about other human beings.
This consciousness of this made up concept of cultural-class that they infect people with becomes a blockade to giving them real class consciousness.
We live in a consumerist country where price is a function of politics rather than material costs.
So "veganism" is just an overpriced branding exercise while surplus hamburger meat from industrial over farming of livestock is some kind of staple crop to the economically illiterate.
The idea that we're being price gouged coming and going, and a bunch of cheap meat is effectively just repackaged industrial waste, doesn't register to meat heads.
Even if we assumed that it was an infallible premise that being vegan requires a position of privilege (which is likely untrue — soy, rice, etc. is some of the cheapest food there is), it doesn't logically follow that you have to remain ideologically anti-vegan.
How the fuck is eating fruit and veggies "ableist"? I'm fucking serious. What the fuck are they trying to say?
I mean, "you're not a true X unless you consume Y" is a generally bad take. Insisting Fidel Castro was a :LIB: because he ate ice cream is pure CIA-tier baby brain.
But I suspect this is some kind of dipshit "I need hamburger or I'll die" pseudo dietary science. Jordan Peterson informed nonsense that's built on the back of toxic hyper-masculine Redpill propaganda.
While not being the best example, my partner isn't capable of being vegan currently due to gastrointestinal issues that force a very restrictive diet - which relies on some amount of meat.
That said all these comments are nowhere close to thinking about that type of nuance.
I mean, its always been "as far as possible and practical"
These people seem to think that being vegan requires a blanket judgement of all people who eat animal products as immoral regardless of whether they're forced to to survive or not
Do they really think our primary concern is random people lost in the woods who need to eat??
They try to justify their shitty takes by saying "if your solution is not perfect and does not cover any imaginable scenario, I’ll just keep the status quo". Oppressors always have the same arguments.
it implies workers are animals
YOU'RE THE ONE IMPOSING A VALUE JUDGEMENT ON THAT TOTALLY ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITE
No non-human animal can be vegan because they are not moral agents.
Cats, however, can survive and thrive on plant-based diets. Yes, really.
The pooled evidence to date from our study, and from others in this field, indicate that cats fed nutritionally sound vegan diets may be healthier overall, than those fed meat-based diets. Regardless of diet type, diets should always be formulated to be nutritionally complete and balanced, without which adverse clinical signs may eventually be expected to occur.
I trust that you have good intentions, but this is just opening the door for carnist concern trolling, which we definitely don't need on a thread like this of all of the things I could post in c/vegan.
With that in mind, are you vegan?
You're right of course, I did not put effort into my comment. You provided some value to it, so ig i'll leave it as is. Remove it if you want it gone.
4 years now.
oh they're bringing in all the hits
"OH SO WORKERS ARE ANIMALS??? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING???"
carnists need new material
I don't agree with the gatekeeping of the take from a literal point of view
tbh it makes it seem like bait for these kinds of replies
Regardless of framing, the notion that leftism and carnism are, in any way, compatible is a false one. Also, even if phrased in a kinder, less absolute manner, it seems rather naïve for one to expect that carnistic leftists would not find a take that points out the discrepancy between leftism and carnism to be upsetting. Doing so seems to be inadvertently validating this notion that people have an issue with vegans being "rude" or how they "approach" spreading their ideas. This isn't true. Rather, they have an issue with vegans being principled and unapologetic regardless if they are rude or kind in the process, and they are uncomfortable with the ideas themselves.
I mean, from an ideological standpoint there are things to be talked about. From a political POV this is blatant self-sabotage.
Saul Goodman!
