Anti-imperialism also requires a change in actions as well. You seem to be hung up more on changing consumption habits. Which are distinct but I'm not convinced meaningfully when it comes to struggle sessions.
veganism doesn't just require forgoing cheese, but all animal products. And cheese is a much broader category than "a sodastream", so yes.
anti-imperialism requires....??? Nobody fuckin' knows because there's no threshold for what constitutes anti-imperialism and what doesn't. Obviously EVERYBODY supports imperialistic businesses in some form or another, just by paying taxes to the US you are supporting imperialism.
So whatever the "threshold" of anti-imperialism is, it's nowhere near absolute, because if it was then literally nobody would be an anti-imperialist. Veganism is well defined and absolute.
I still don't see at all how that makes this struggle session any different in any meaningful way. I don't eat any meat, but I'm not vegan because I don't think that "eating meat is bad" is a universal moral truth.
to be a vegan you have to think something AND do something to totality
to be an anti-imperialist you have to just think something, maybe halfassedly do something
that's why veganism inherently is more limiting and less popular even among leftists, and probably even on this site.
If you want, you can take a poll, and I'll quote your OP that triggered this debate:
This is the same reason people throw shitfits about China, totalitarianism, market socialism, or anything else.
based on that:
"what % of chapos have a favorable view of China, and/or think it's severely mistreated by western media"
and
"what % of chapos are vegan"
to be an anti-imperialist you have to just think something
I don't anyone except you would sign onto a notion of anti-imperialism that doesn't involve "doing something", it might be more ill-defined than veganism, but it's not like there aren't disagreements between vegans about whats allowed (wool? honey? bee-pollinated fruit?).
My guess is the former far outpaces the latter
Different size camps don't a different struggle session make.
See I thought that and then the vegans on this website sent me this to correct me.
Okay so it's a diet + more stuff. It still requires all the change that a diet requires...plus more stuff.
Which is brought about by a change in how you think, just like all the other things I mentioned. My point is this struggle session isn't special.
Liking China = a change in thinking
being vegan = a change in thinking, + a change in diet, + other stuff (leather, wool, etc)
Liking China doesn't cost me anything, it's pretty easy to do. That was the point of my original comment.
Liking China isn't anti-imperialism.
Look the point is this struggle isn't any different from any other topic controversial in leftist spaces.
but you're wrong, the struggle is inherently different.
it's literally material conditions.
Liking China isn't material. Being vegan is. Material > all.
Liking China isn't anti-imperialism.
Minutiae. But fine I'll change my comment.
anti-imperialism = a change in thinking
veganism = a change in thinking, + a change in diet, + other stuff (leather, wool, etc)
Anti-imperialism also requires a change in actions as well. You seem to be hung up more on changing consumption habits. Which are distinct but I'm not convinced meaningfully when it comes to struggle sessions.
Anti-imperialism doesn't require a total and measurable discrete change in action.
Veganism does.
Everyone can claim to be Anti-imperialist in some sense, the borders have no definition.
Veganism, not so
therefore it is easier to be anti-imperialist than vegan.
because that is a requirement for being vegan.
And your position is that this struggle session is different at a fundamental level because it's harder to not buy cheese than a SodaStream?
veganism doesn't just require forgoing cheese, but all animal products. And cheese is a much broader category than "a sodastream", so yes.
anti-imperialism requires....??? Nobody fuckin' knows because there's no threshold for what constitutes anti-imperialism and what doesn't. Obviously EVERYBODY supports imperialistic businesses in some form or another, just by paying taxes to the US you are supporting imperialism.
So whatever the "threshold" of anti-imperialism is, it's nowhere near absolute, because if it was then literally nobody would be an anti-imperialist. Veganism is well defined and absolute.
You said going vegan for you wasn't hard at all though.
I never said that. I'm not vegan. I support eating less meat though, and if someone can make veganism work for them that's good
I still don't see at all how that makes this struggle session any different in any meaningful way. I don't eat any meat, but I'm not vegan because I don't think that "eating meat is bad" is a universal moral truth.
If I thought that, I'd be a vegan.
Again:
to be a vegan you have to think something AND do something to totality
to be an anti-imperialist you have to just think something, maybe halfassedly do something
that's why veganism inherently is more limiting and less popular even among leftists, and probably even on this site.
If you want, you can take a poll, and I'll quote your OP that triggered this debate:
based on that:
"what % of chapos have a favorable view of China, and/or think it's severely mistreated by western media"
and
"what % of chapos are vegan"
My guess is the former far outpaces the latter
I don't anyone except you would sign onto a notion of anti-imperialism that doesn't involve "doing something", it might be more ill-defined than veganism, but it's not like there aren't disagreements between vegans about whats allowed (wool? honey? bee-pollinated fruit?).
Different size camps don't a different struggle session make.
if it's more ill-defined, then it's easier to be one. That's the entire point.
It's easier for me to not eat meat (which is something I already do for reasons of convenience) that it is for me to think something I don't think.