but... they do fund the meat alternatives. thry literally pay money for that shit? I guess thst's ehy it's a shitpost
I'm not even a vegetarian and I've heard way more fellow meat eaters fucking constantly bitching about vegans than I've ever heard vegans being annoying about it.
Just feels like whiny baby bullshit honestly.
Tbf, there are way more non-vegans than there are vegans. I feel like this should be expected to an extent. This meme is dumb though. What vegan is out there calling non-vegans rapists?
What vegan is out there calling non-vegans rapists?
I've been told that before. Not being vegan implies you support terrible breeding practices which makes you a rapist... apparently... Which is especially dumb considering nobody likes the terrible breeding practices to begin with
Nobody likes the practice, the difference is that vegans take a moral stand and choose not to contribute to it, while meat eaters shrug it off and continue to pay the people committing those acts, because they'd rather cows get anally fisted and forcibly impregnated than drink a milk with a different flavour.
Your comment actually made me wonder if the Lemmy community's vegan/vegetarian communities are better, and I need to look it up!
The reddit ones seem very hostile when I tried to participate as a person who eats meat but mostly has a vegetarian diet (and my wife is fully vegetarian)
They are not.
Never, ever disclose that you are not a level 5 vegan or else they will scream at you while pretending that you are the problem.
They're overpaying for them. Which then makes companies calculate "we could sell a lot of product at small profit margins to the general vegetarian and flexi public" vs. "we could not invest in production capacity and charge affluent urban vegans and arm and a leg" and guess what they're going for.
The reason why there's tons of almond etc. milks costing 3-4 times as much per litre as actual milk is not because of subsidies. It's because vegans are stupid enough to buy 20 cents of ingredients for that price.
Most meat alternatives like impossible burgers are bullshit.
Ultra processed shit food.
There's a lot of good vegan food that doesn't pretend to be burgers, ribs or anything else besides what is it.
Plus who fucks an animal before you eat it?
If you're looking for context, this is a shit post about my recent interactions with a certain community of vegans
Makes sense, I saw your instance and I had questions that I did not want to ask.
Mammals need to be pregnant to produce milk, so to get cow milk you have to impregnate a cow. That's what they mean by rapist.
it's not rape, it's a veterinary procedure called artificial insemination and it's safer than letting a bull mount them.
They only need to be pregnant once. The calf milk is different than normal milk and can not be sold. The stuff we drink is what happens after a calf is born but you never stop milking so the cow stays productive. I think you need to revisit mamal biology. Once the process of Milk production is started milk will be produced in most mammals till the long term cessation of mamary tisssue stimulation.
Im sorry, but what kind of mammal biology are you talking about that says that two different types of milk come from the same animal?
Also, milk production usually does go down somewhat over time and sometimes even does cease, and it's different for every individual, which makes it less predictable and less profitable to just impregnate a cow once. This is why dairy farmers almost always try to impregnate their cows yearly. Here's one source, there's plenty more coming up if you look it up on a search engine though https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/dairy/farming
Imagine having access to the entire repository of human knowledge at your fingertips and being this ignorant.
Nope that’s not how it works at all. They keep reimpregnanting the mother and then they take the calf away for slaughter while the mother cries for her child for months on end.
Even if what you said was true (spoilers: it's not and you're making shit up, most dairy cows are impregnated once a year) your argument is that it's ok because we only rape and kill the cows calf shortly after birth once.
It's fine that you have shitty opinions, but stop spreading misinformation to support them. And definitely stop doing it while using big words to smugly pretend you're smarter than other people.
Or every day even! Remember, you sound crazy for complaining about things I've decided I like so you should just let it happen. Care for a nice tall glass of rape juice? 🥛
And? My point still stands, a cow that hasn't been impregnated will not produce milk. Is only doing it once supposed to make it better?
Think about dairy what you will, but 'I didn't do it, I paid someone else to do it' is never a very solid argument in a debate on ethics.
Naw, they're fine. Processed food is fine, too. Everything in moderation and a side salad.
Impossible burgers cooked right on the skillet are pretty damn good, imo. And easy. I'm no vegetarian but we keep them in our weeknight rotation.
Edit: Connect is messing up and I can no longer see some comments below. The study you cite, SMCF, uses the Nova classification system to define ultra-processed foods, meaning that category contains "soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes." This gives you no information on Impossible burgers' impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
That’s fine, just remember they’re junk food and not the health food people seem to think they are.
•
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don't know what a "health food" would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what "Impossible" etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn't processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I'd probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
•
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what "processed" food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one's health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one's health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely "processed" versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn't a worthwhile comparison.
•
No, it does not.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of "Ultra-Processed Foods" is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you're using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we're discussing don't, as they are "processed" to include those constituents.
Who literally thinks they’re a health food? I’ve never met someone in real life that’s told me that.
You’ve never heard people say they’re made from plants so they are healthy?
It’s usually the same people who talk about their nerds or potato chips being gluten free or their Oreos vegan.
They're not really a junk food. They're not as healthy as eating straight-up vegetables, but they're definitely not junk food.
Plus who fucks an animal before you eat it?
Yeah! Most of the girls I've dated prefer it the other way around
•
Another frustrating thing about alternative meat burgers is they are often still using animal products...
Yea, but they also hate the lab grown stuff that's being worked on which is so close to the real thing without all the killing and cruelty and stuff
Beyond burgers are literally right there lmao. You don't need lab grown meat to stop supporting animal abuse, it's a thinly veiled excuse to avoid having to change and grow as a person
2 things, 1) I can't afford it as a regular item 2) Id say they're maybe 70% there, there's still a taste and texture issue. I personally don't mind it and would happily switch over if it weren't for #1
Vegans/Vegetarians will never get the vast majority of people out there to give up meat, best shot is that lab meat if they can get the cost equivalent to real meat.
Lab grown meat is gonna be even more expensive, and 70% is way more than enough there that it's no excuse to support animal abuse
Lab grown meat is gonna be even more expensive
Sounds like the perfect thing to advocate that the government subsidizes while the tech matures and comes down in cost on its own.
70% is way more than enough there that it's no excuse to support animal abuse
Like I said, if I could afford it I would have switched already long ago, I personally am fine with the taste and texture. But for many others, that 30% is gonna be a deal breaker.
Plus who fucks an animal before you eat it?
Everyone eating dairy.
Cows are mammals. They produce milk for their calves, its not something that cows just naturally produce. So the dairy industry only exists from repeated forcible impregnation.
Edit:
Everyone who drinks milk fucks cows?
Am I supposed to take you seriously right now?
I'll just throw a piece of bacon on my cheeseburger tonight in honour of that commenter.
You realise that veal is often just the calves taken from dairy cows, right? If you drink milk you are already supporting veal. They're killed anyway, it's just the difference between them being discarded or being sold.
It's like if you pay a hitman to do some murders for you. Are you a murderer? I guess not technically, but 'conspirator to commit murder' doesn't have the same ring to it. Thus we just opt for rapist, since you support an industry that annually rapes cows and kills their calves so that you can enjoy a tall glass of cow juice.
It's ok if that's what you want to do. No judgement here.
I pay taxes so am I responsible for the murders and wars my government commits?
You can't really compare the two things. You have limited control over how your taxes are spent, you can vote on how you want them spent and protest the actions of your government, but outside of that it's not up to you.
With milk, though, you are directly financing it by buying the product, and the product wouldn't exist without those things happening. So you are in effect a 'conspirator to cow rape' since your demand incites the act.
Dairy production is heavy subsidized so even if you don’t buy it you are still supporting the industry.
So yes it can be compared.
Ok, so because you're being needlessly pedantic here is the comparison.
I am not directly responsible for the wars and murders my government commits because of the reasons I stated above. But if they had a big bucket that said 'put money in this big bucket to directly support the wars and murders of your government' and I were to put money in of my own free will - then yes I would be directly responsible for those wars and murders.
If I do not put money in I am not directly responsible.
That's the difference between paying taxes and buying a bottle of cow milk.
Yeah, I used a metaphor to help explain how you can be found responsible for something even if you didn't do the thing yourself.
I guess I don't agree with you. If I buy a product that specifically requires the death of an animal I would feel like I am responsible for the death of that animal and monetarily incentivising the death of other animals.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone I am not innocent of murder.
You don't get to support an industry that kills animals and then say you're not responsible for the death of animals.
Without getting into a semantics debate on what rape is. The reason the word is used is because dairy cows are impregnated by fisting the cows asshole and stimulating their cervix before squirting a semen gun into their vagina. The cows cannot consent to this so the word rape is used. Some people might not consider it rape for whatever reason and yes, the word was probably chosen to be provocative. But that's the explanation.
it's not rape. it's a veterinary procedure. animals don't consent to any veterinary procedures. it's not rape.
Everyone who drinks milk is funding the repeated rape of cows
False. I drink goat milk!
Isn't the dairy industry heavily subsidized so would anyone paying taxes be doing that too?
Do you pay taxes?
You see part of the problem with the system then. This is why vegans go as far as possible and practicable, because animal abuse is built into everything and is not optional. We're trying to minimize it where we can, and use that momentum to eventually get rid of some of the malevolent built in nonsense we all have to deal with. Nobody should be subsidizing cow rapists and murders, and it shouldn't be a requirement to live here to.
Your language makes you sound like an anti-abortion nutcase.
Cow rapist!
Baby killer!
It's all the same to someone that doesn't feel as strongly about your beliefs as you.
Sorry, do you have another term for the non consensual penetration of someone's ass and vagina? I'm listening.
Turns out the answer was "no". Color me surprised.
lol
How the fuck did you think milk was produced? This is literally grade school biology. Farmers rape cows for their milk, and you pay them for the privilege.
They probably get off on fisting the cow's asshole before they even shove the insemination gun in tbh
I think you seriously underestimate how much non-human raping goes on in the animal world. Many species have dicks that have evolved specifically to facilitate rape.
And...?
What does that have to do with humans choosing to rape cows for profit? Total non-sequitur. Bears shit in the woods, does that mean you do too? Animals rape, therefore you should too?
Sometimes I shit in the woods 🖐️ not cause bears do it, just cause there's no toilets out there and it is kinda nice tbh
I would never buy animal products tho, that shit is fucked up 😬
It's literally penetrating a genitals to impregnate them against their will for our own benefit, the definition of rape. Saying you don't care about the rape of cows and will keep eating dairy is your opinion, but denying that it is rape is just straight up cognitive dissonance.
Vegans need to downvote anyone that disagrees when them is proof their ideas cannot stand scrutiny. They do not relish in a debate of in any capacity. They don't even have original ideas, it's the same couple talking points because it's ideology base. They call themselves converts but won't accept it's a religion.
You know what's "funny". Vegans DO fund not only alternatives but also meat subsidies with the taxes on vegan food. For meat to be as cheap as it is, a lot of tax money is going into the industry
Also, who says vegans don't support these ventures and call people murderers at the same time. We can have both.
The screaming, raging, seething and antagonizing only serves to make people less receptive to such ventures.
It makes me think of that Stone Henge thing just recently. That was such a despicable shit show that people have been calling it a false flag to distance it from actual activism.
They used water soluble pigment. It'll wash off when the rain comes. There's no chemical reaction with the stone that could cause lasting damage. And given that it's fucking England, I'm sure the rain has already come and washed it away. You're getting mad over nothing.
Yeah same can be said of the military industrial complex. Welcome to lemmy, most people here hate the government
The best thing for a vegan to do is to keep being a vegan. Seriously, just keep on doing it.
It doesn't mean evangelise, it doesn't mean denigrate, it means just carry on doing what works for you.
If you're insulting other folks, or trying to push a lifestyle, odds are folks don't dislike you because you're vegan.
idk, I'm a meat eater and if it wasn't for vegans evangelizing I really wouldn't know how messed up meat production is. We allow some seriously cruel shit to fellow sentient beings, far beyond just killing them, and no one wants to think about it.
You definitely have a point; informing and evangelising are closer than we'd like to admit. Then again, the messenger is often as important as the message - in the case of the vegan debate too many folks choose the moral option rather than the pragmatic one.
As a species, we find it hard to empathise with the death of our own at massive scales, why would we be capable of doing it for organisms we were brought up to consider food?
However, almost all of us are on a massively reduced budget, it'd be a shame if folks shared delicious recipes that can be made cheaply and just so happen to be vegan right?
The next best thing for a non-vegan to do isn't to switch right away, it's to start finding vegan things you enjoy more than meat!
Eating a whole foods plant based diet is 30% cheaper
“Oxford University research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third.”
“The study, which compared the cost of seven sustainable diets to the current typical diet in 150 countries, using food prices from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program, was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.”
Source: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
You have no right to sacrifice victims for your life style for their body and their secretions
Your fist swinging stops the moment it touches the nose of an animal.
I get so scared to interact with the vegan users on here. And I am on their side.
But like why do I see people getting harrassed and banned for like admitting out loud they love cheese too much so that they haven’t been able to find a replacement yet but they are looking?
Why does veganism manifest in such a scary way here? Speaking as someone who participates in non-scary vegan commities 😭I wish the vegan movement so much success and I don’t want that to result in a schism on here but I feel like doing harrassment and name calling doesn’t work well. Just like, be kind.
It's just how internet activist groups work. Most people aren't motivated to improve things for their cause, they're motivated to prove to others in their group how zealous they are. The more outlandish and untrue the things they say are, the more they prove their loyalty to the cause and the more points they'll get from others in the group.
It's the same pattern of behavior for every internet activist group. Whether it's a vegan group, a socialist group, a MAGA group, an antivax group, Qanon, whatever. Promoting the cause doesn't really matter, it's about promoting yourself to others within the cause. Which is why you see insane lies about every kind of contentious issue. They aren't trying to convince you, they're trying to convince the others in the group how dedicated they are to the cause. "I'm willing to lie to help the cause!" gets a lot of points from the people already supporting the cause.
This is an interesting theory, but I think you're just wrong on several counts. There are definitely permanently online people who don't do anything in the real world, but out of the groups you listed, vegans and MAGA members almost universally have material impact on the world (socialists and antivaxers would like to, but their impact is usually hyper-localized, so you'll find more "only-online" types).
For vegans and MAGA, there is real direct action that they partake in as buy-in for the group. For the former, it's abstaining from animal products, and for the latter it's voting for Trump.
Claiming most vegans or MAGA people aren't motivated to improve things for their cause is demonstrably false. An interesting theory nonetheless.
I'll mention just so my biases are clear, I'm a vegan socialist, but I don't think i was unfair here in favor of those positions.
I see what you are saying but I don’t think it’s every. Perhaps every kind.
Once I see a group getting this toxic I just leave and make or join a new one that is being more constructive :)
Look at it like that: Many people become vegan because they realize that there is no magical difference between humans (or dogs, cats and so on) and the animals who are raised to be slaughtered. We all feel pain, fear and grief. So a society that kills sentient animals and eats or wears parts of their dead bodies is not too different then one which does that with their fellow humans. How angry would you be to live in such a horrible society?
The only reason to not being angry all the time is, that I needed more than 30 years to realize those things myself. How we are handling most animals, how we are torturing and killing them is normalized. It is really hard to get from "steak yummy" to a vegan world view. How can I expect that other people change their ways just like that?
It is still fucking sad and I totally get, why some vegans are so angry. Live and let live is the most cynical shit one could say in this situation.
I can absolutely defend and relate to being angry :) I can absolutely defend being a “mean vegan.” I can absolutely defend being disruptive and proselytizing and refusing to live and let live.
I cannot defend verbal harrassment. That’s not “being mean,” that’s using your position as a vegan as a token to do emotional abuse.
:::spoiler Disclaimer This comment may not be about you. If you are the person in the first paragraph we have a lot in common! My criticism is of those represented by the second paragraph and if that’s not you my apologies and much love 💕 :::
I'm a mean vegan because I used to be a carnist, and mean vegans changed my mind. The people on vegancirclejerk are fucking hilarious. I stayed for the memes, and then I changed my diet because I felt guilty. The best possible thing you can do as a vegan is make carnists feel guilty. It works.
Interesting. I was a triggered vegetarian and didn't like those guys calling me a cheese breather (I'm still ambivalent towards them). When I became a vegan it was because of the non-drastic stating a fact people, not because of the jerks.
So maybe we need both – and many more forms of activism?
MLK said it best, so I'll just quote him directly:
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
When moderates advocate for "kindness" or "civility", they're advocating for negative peace; the absence of tension. Vegans advocate for positive peace; the presence of justice. When activists advocate for positive peace, in the face of those who deny said justice, tensions rise and moderates fall back to this common trope.
Holy shit you did not just quote MLK at me saying people who eat cheese should not be harrassed!
That is a disturbing twisting of both veganism and MLK. :(
Once again I participate with so many vegan individuals in ways that do not involve harrassment campaigns. Here is a list of direct action that I consider constructive:
- animal rescue
- investigations of animal abuse
- leafleting
- inline education campaigns
- protests and marches
- restaurant sit-ins
- graffiti
- civil disobedience
- many more
Again I cannot believe I am saying this, but there is no credible evidence that MLK participated in harrassment against individuals admitting minor disagreement. Attacking a person who admits to eating cheese, like maybe 60% of the world population, accusing them of being a rapist constantly and repeatedly, and calling that “advocacy for positive peace,” is really really fucking sad. It is absolutely terrifyingly in bad faith to quote MLK in defense of such behavior.
::: spoiler disclaimer Maybe this isn’t you, I haven’t checked your account history so keep that in mind. You have my apologies if you aren’t doing verbal abuse. :)
My criticisms of others in the Lemmy community who do verbal attacks do hold, though. I am just glad they are the minority in real life and only seem to exist online. :::
Why should people committing unjust acts be allowed to commit them in peace? Where is the peace for their victims if we do not speak up? The MLK quote seems entirely fitting.
While the civil rights movement was largely "peaceful" (loaded word with little meaning), it was also incredibly disruptive. People in the movement were very rude to moderates who advocated in favor of negative peace while reaffirming their appreciation of the status-quo.
MLK's position here was not that the people within the civil rights movement needed to be more respectful to white moderates. His position was that the moderates were the issue. The people who consistently advocated for negative peace were the issue.
The leaders of vegan movements also don't generally go around attacking the moderates of our time who appreciate the status-quo and advocate for negative peace. There are individuals that do attack moderates, just like there were individuals in the civil rights movement who literally physically assaulted white moderates (much worse than calling someone a cheese-breather and having their feelings get a bit hurt). Again, MLK did not draw attention to these fringe cases because the actual issue were the moderates themselves. Some might even say the racists deserved to be beaten, and that's not even something I would necessarily argue against.
Veganism is the same. The issue is not the people who are a bit rude online to bloodmouths/carnists. The issue is the moderates themselves, their constant advocacy for negative peace in place of positive peace needs to be shut down unequivocally.
There are individuals that do attack moderates, just like there were individuals in the civil rights movement who literally physically assaulted white moderates
Yeah, precisely. Put simply my goal is to call out the fact that these individuals are having an outsized influence on Lemmy. I have no criticism of vegan leadership as a whole. I just hope we can continue to call out the toxicity that is present on Lemmy until a more constructive and representative-of-the-whole community exists on here. 💙
Calling someone a bloodmouth for literally eating things with blood might hurt their feelings, but vegans have feelings too, and sometimes we're upset at the idea that moderates can't be bothered to give enough of a shit to stop literally shoveling blood into their mouths.
This is something I seriously hate from people like you, you expect vegans to be these bastions of angelic perfection. We already go through the effort of being vegans in a non-vegan world, but that's not enough, we have to make sure we do it in a way that don't effect the delicate sensibilities of people who pay to consume tortured animal carcasses.
The goal shouldn't be to try to de-radicalize vegans for expressing their discomfort around literal abuse that's normalized in our society. The goal should be to get rid of the abuse.
That's fair but there's also a practical question of efficacy. Malcolm X did not convince white people to change.
MLK brilliantly straddled the line between speaking up and alienating people.
MLK actually alienated white moderates to about the same degree that vegans alienate carnists. It was only retroactively, after the civil rights movement, that white moderates pretended like they were aligned with him all along. In 1966 MLK was polling in the low 30s among white Americans.
I'm sure future moderates/apoliticals will do the same with veganism. Lab grown meat will become a thing, we'll outlaw our barbaric practices of animal torture and slaughter, and those future generations will look back with horror at how savage we were, and all the moderates will proclaim proudly that "I would've been a vegan if I was born in the late 20th/early 21st century", and they would be almost always wrong.
It's similar to everyone's modern position on slavery. If you polled the majority of the population "would you be an abolitionist if you were born in the early/mid 19th century?", you'll get the vast majority of people saying they would've been, but the vast majority of people were not, and its not like we had some evil gene in us that got naturally selected out of us. People were just normalized in that environment. People today are just generally incorrect about what the impact of normalization would've been on them in the past (or even what the impact of it is on them today).
The people in Washington listened to MLK because he was radicalising hundreds of thousands of people, and if his demands were not met, the politicians worried that those people would start listening to Malcolm X. The radical and moderate sides of any movement exist in symbiosis. They are the carrot and the stick, working together. The owning class likes the carrot much better than the stick, so they give credit to the carrot. But you need radicals so that you can say "look who's coming for you if you don't listen to me". It's good cop bad cop.
Oh no. This whole thing quickly turned into yet another opinionated divisive fedposting shithole.
I don't think real conversations of the type you would respectfully have in person exist on the Internet anymore.
I thought maybe this place would be a little smarter than that, but it kind of sucks now.
yeah, this is why i need a fediverse version of tiktok/reels.
i think we can be quite kinder versions of ourselves when we have the constant reminder there is a living breathing person on the other side of the username :)
Thinking about it, it is strange that such extremist behavior seems so prevalent around here. In the real world, I haven't heard much like this since the Australian couple that malnourished their puppies years ago. They displayed the same level of smugness the whole time.
On the fediverse, however, it seems like I see someone yelling "carnist rapist murderer" every couple of days. I'm honestly starting to think that there actually might be some kind of corpo-backed false-flag going on here, it's so extreme and constant. There are people in this thread alone who are so extreme it reaches the point of parody.
Let's be honest, Lemmy is not a good sample of the general population. We're all atypical in one way or another, it makes sense that niche extremism concentrates here.
I agree with your first paragraph 🧡
Second paragraph is a reach. I think it’s just a symptom of online toxicity, as in people feel enabled to do verbal abuse when they can’t see the person on the other side of the screen. You don’t need to stoop to the false flag accusations to see the cause, it’s literally just the same setting that brings about all uniquely online abuse.
Ive been thinking about that and I have a theory that most of those "extremist vegans" are people trying to make others hate vegans. Im not positive this is true but it makes more and more sense to me.
Ah yes, Big Tomato is funding an anti-meat lobby on Lemmy.
The actual logical explanation you're missing is that you've been propagandized so you think murder is normal, and being against murder is extremist.
Aaaaand you've willfully ignored what I've said so you can do more grandstanding. This is precisely what I'm referring to. Your first sentence shows that you didn't even understand what you were replying to.
For context, I was saying that meat corporations may be paying trolls to make vegans look like loons and idiots in a similar fashion to Russia's pro-Trump troll farms. That is the exact opposite of what you've now claimed.
I can think of two possible reasons for your complete failure at a response:
- First, because you felt the slightest opposition to your position, even if the opposition is only to your methods, was a personal attack, in which case, you're doing thr job plenty well yourself, or
- Second, because I nailed it, called you out, and you felt you needed to cover your ass.
And based on the complete disconnect between what my comment actually said and the ignorant content of your own, I'd say the latter is entirely possible.
Damn, you caught me. Yep, I'm a paid shill for the meat industry. I'm trying to trick you into eating lots of meat. Please don't go vegan, it would be so bad for our shareholder value.
Making my point
You literally had to make something up to be mad about.
And yes, I'm blocking you, because there's no value in arguing with a troll that has to completely swap the opposing argument just to feel superior. Goodbye.
To a leftist there are two kinds of people in the world: people who are with me 110%, believe everything I believe to the last letter, and are willing to punch people in the face to that effect, and enemies who must be crushed
The people you are describing arent the ones being harrassed. Its the elitists who make eating meat their religion and shaming any who dont
Why would you make that assumption? I havent even made a statement on the matter and am already being harrassed.
If you are so confident in vegans harrassing almost-vegans who try to live without animal products, please name a single instance. I would genuinely like to see a comment like that because I havent seen any and Ive read a lot of arguments about veganism.
The people you described aren't the ones being harassed
I think it's very hypocritical of you to assume that and then call me out for assuming something similar. And then you call this harassment? I made an assumption based on an assumption you felt free to make. But when I make a similar assumption, that's harassment?
If you are so confident in vegans harrassing almost-vegans who try to live without animal products, please name a single instance.
I've personally experienced it, both in real life and on social platforms, including lemmy. I just make it a point to try and avoid interactions like that these days. I don't go into vegan communities despite being really enthusiastic about stuff like meat substitutes because around 50% of my interactions have been terrible. And 50% is a terrible number btw. The false equivalences, the assumptions and other issues even in this post's comments section is kind of alarming. But yeah... Play a victim if that's what suits you i guess.
I like the concept of veganism, but your community isn't the best to outsiders. One day that too will change hopefully.
•
I'm not a vegan (yet) but I have a lot of respect for those who are. I would love to see some developments in cruelty-free lab grown meat and just hope it won't be full of shit.
Lab grown meat that is unhealthy as fuck. Lab grown meat is no longer meat, so you can't call it that.
I want to eat meat that was a part of some animal, not lab grown food.
Shaking in my boots tail between my legs
https://www.lifelongvegan.org/2018/01/why-vegans-are-skinny-and-weak.html
I consider myself a flexitarian, I adopt puppies, give them a good life till they're about 2 years old, then humanely slaughter them and eat them. The stuff I don't eat I backfeed to the next round of puppies.
I am so with this post, what I do is so much more sustainable and humane than anything that happens on a farm. Extremists harrassing me should fund lab grown meat instead. Really this is more ethical than eating beans because of crop deaths.
Your mistake here was saying "puppies" too early. You have to lead with a couple paragraphs of how you're a flexitarian who has a farm and humanely raised animals like pets and then slaughters and feed them to your family.
Then list off the animals you exploit, cows, pigs, dogs, chickens, cats and ducks. Then their brain gets hit with the dissonance of "wait why did I support this and then stop the second they said 'dog'?" That jarring experience can work for the intellectually honest type.
Saying it too early means they can categorize your post as satire easily and not engage with it at all mentally.
“wait why did I support this and then stop the second they said ‘dog’?
It's a bad idea in general to eat predators because the higher up the food chain you go the higher the chance you'll contract an illness. Humans are not alone at all among predators to practically only go after grazers, and not other predators. We leave the rest to carrion eaters who specialise to deal with all kinds of nasty stuff.
People thinking that this is some kind of grand ethical-philosophical argument or conundrum just shows how alienated they are from the ways of nature.
It goes to show how much we purposefully disregard the ways of nature, actually.
Moral decisions are not made on the grounds of "is this natural"? A lot of things are moral and unnatural, and a lot of things are immoral and natural. It should be incredibly easy for you to think of examples, but if you're really struggling I can give some.
They're orthogonal discussions.
Eh, mostly I'm just pointing out how stupid this is to anyone with half a brain in their head.
We have animal rights legislation and morals for reasons, and nobody who like protests whaling gets criticised for not growing fake whale meat. You might disagree on where the line should be but it's just outing yourself as someone with underdeveloped theory of mind if you don't understand why people might feel strongly about it being further down the tree of life.
•
Don't farmers specifically not form bonds with the animals they intend to slaughter? Isn't it socially acceptable to eat dogs and cats in some countries? Personally, raising your own meat and slaughtering it for consumption does indeed sound like the best way to go about it.
Dogs have not been human food in the absurdly long time they've been around except for very rare occasions. This is just a stupid "point" in your stupid fucking vegan brain.
I.e, I don't have dogs on my food list simply because they're not a part of the normal human food ecosystem not because I have some moral objections
I consider myself a flexitarian, I adopt puppies, give them a good life till they’re about 2 years old, then humanely slaughter them and eat them. The stuff I don’t eat I backfeed to the next round of puppies.
I do the puppy thing as well, but I don't eat them (they're nasty). I just like killing puppies.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. It's almost into not even wrong territory. I think you should contact a philosophy department and ask them why they haven't considered this.
Nooooo, because shame and insults are clearly the best ways to get people to switch over to your ideology. /s
It worked on me. I went vegan because I was ashamed of eating meat. If you're not a vegan then I don't think you have any perspective on what's effective at getting people to go vegan.
so if i and enough other people think your a fool and deride you long enough because you got peer pressured and bullied into making your dietary decisions youll switch back to eating meat ?
No, you can't make me feel guilty for not eating dead animal, it doesn't work like that.
Ok. We're on the prairie. There's literally nothing here to eat but bison, though somehow you've got it into your head that you can eat grass. Fine, we'll let you try for a bit until you come to your senses. Two weeks later your digestion is fucked, you're lethargic, and we have to carry you.
You, MindTraveller, have just become a burden to the whole group, lowering all of our chances of survival, all over some so-called "principle". I know of gods, I know of spirits, if your principles are anything like that then certainly they must be evil. Maybe shaming won't help to drive them out, we can try other rites, but if nothing helps then we will have to leave you behind.
It worked for christianity, or any religion fir that matter. "You're a filthy heathen and you're not allowed the privileges of a normal human if you don't pretend to believe in my particular set of fairytales"
Is that really what convinced people though?
Don't imagine the folks with megaphones actually convert many folks.
This is ironic because the argument concedes vegan ideology, it's just attacks them for not doing more. At this point the carnists are not really arguing, they're negotiating terms of surrender.
Most meat consumers already suspect vegans are right. We get aggravated because we'd rather ignore that question. And a vegan threatens to force the issue, even in our own mind. If you've ever wondered why vegans inspire automatic hostility, ridicule, and derision it's because they threaten a carnists identity as a good person just by existing.
I came up with an idea recently so I just have to ask: are you a false flag? Your behavior doesn't serve to make anyone more open to your position. In fact, it serves the exact opposite purpose. So, really, are you a false flag trying to make people less receptive to veganism as a whole or what?
Yep, we're from the meat lobby and we're here to make sure nobody eats vegetables. Please don't eat vegetables, it'll be so bad for shareholder value!
Nope. Vegans are fine. Veganist like you are religious nut jobs. You've created narratives and then act like anyone who doesn't agree with you is the bad guy. Not unlike the far right or any other extremist group.
That feeling of your existence being a threat is the same feeling any other authoritarian feels.
Vegans are abstaning, you are acting. Supporting animal agriculture makes you the aggressor. The animals are the victims.
anyone who doesn’t agree with you is the bad guy.
You seem a little defensive. Threatened even.
I'm sure you perceive it that way, as you already said you perceive being a threat. You appear to take pride in it.
Couldn't be less threatened by you. Your abstinence reduces price competition for meat products. You are restricting yourself such that it benefits me.
The real threat in this regard are the boomers who eat more meat products than other generations.
I feel I should donate a quarter head of beef to a local food pantry in your name as tribute and to show there are no ill feelings. At least from me. I doubt you feel the same towards me.
"I'm going to pay a killer to give me a corpse in your name just to spite you, but I'm going to pretend I'm doing you a favour even though I hate it. Because I'm NOT an asshole. Doing people fake favours they don't want is what non-assholes do."
•
Former vegan, long term vegetarian; I don't even like telling people I am a vegetarian because of the agresive ones.
If you want a meat alternative try black bean burgers or falafel. Both are solid options.
•
You won't convince people if you act like a jerk. You will convince people if you are a good cook.
I came up with an idea recently so I just have to ask: are you a false flag? Your behavior doesn’t serve to make anyone more open to your position. In fact, it serves the exact opposite purpose. So, really, are you a false flag trying to make people less receptive to veganism as a whole or what?
Can't help but notice the sudden influx of downvotes for any comment that isn't making the claim that all farmers fuck cows. It's almost like some kind of brigade.
the post was in the top10 of "active" in /all, so everyone gets a vote, and it IS a topic where emotions tend to run high, regardless of stance to the topic, so thats to be expected
>A sudden, sharp influx of users presenting behavior and opinions leaning in a specific direction that was previously much less represented
>"DUrR yoU jUSt DoNT LikE iT"
I saw enough r/nonewnornal brigades back in 2020 to have an idea. A harshly different upvote/downvote ratio along opinion lines between the post itself and the comments is a very good indicator.
Saw plenty of apologist/sockpuppet comments like yours back then, too. May have seen this one almost ver batim, in fact.
I already apologized to the mods here. I've been watching the vote counters fluctuate. I'm really sorry the nice people from shitpost are having to deal with this I just wanted a funny post.
I have removed way too many posts for incivility, so I will be locking this thread and going through it to remove the rest.
Just because you feel strongly about a subject does not give you reason to break rule 1.
This post reminded me why I had this community blocked for several months until recently.
This comment section gonna be spicy~
Tbh I kinda agree with you, calling someone a murderer or rapist for eating meat is overboard; however the biggest issue I have is the pretentious and self-righteous attitude that vegans have. Like, cool, you don't eat meat, good for you! I agree that commercially raised farm animals are often abused, and that even animals raised by small, private farms don't always get to lead their best lives.^1 At the same time though, you're not making your cause look good.
Yes, I might honestly be a better person if I stop eating meat, dairy and buying any form of animal product; but I'm also gonna be associated with assholes with overinflated egos. I'm distanced enough from the slaughter that the overinflated ego is more of a turnoff than the slaughtering of animals.
Is that how it should be? No, but that's how humans usually work. The object perceived to be closer is a higher priority than the object perceived to be further away. Animal slaughter is perceived as being further away than being associated with assholes, so the fear of being associated with assholes is a greater "threat" than the inhumane treatment of animals.
Be a vegan if you want, or don't. You're honestly probably a better, healthier person if you're vegan (though you probably have your head up your ass about it), because your diet and spending habits are less likely to contribute to climate change, animal cruelty, and because you have to be conscious about what you eat, your food is likely healthier.
Just... Don't be an ass about it, dude.
Instead of accusing people of being "carnists", talk about a good (totally-not-vegan) dish you had recently. Instead of accusing people of murder, talk about the pros and cons of real leather vs faux leather.^2 Instead of telling people they're animal rapists, talk about new sources of cow's milk.
I swear I recently read about a technically vegan blue cheese that won and then got disqualified from a cheese competition because the milk it was made from was technically synthetic cow's milk that had been derived from fungi or something. Talk about that shit. That is pretty fucking cool. Fungus milk that's virtually identical to cow's milk? That's awesome!
Meat eating and the damage it causes is far off in most people's rear-view mirrors, and many people don't know or don't have time to find ways of getting off the meat highway. They don't know about alternatives or up-and-coming technologies related to meat substitutes. Being an ass is only going to turn people away; if you really care, then you'll understand that you have to take people's hands and take baby steps with them. And no, you can't get angry when they mess up. You're helping a baby to walk, if you get angry then they'll just get angry, demoralized, frustrated with you or themselves, or something else, and you risk them giving up. If you actually care though, then you don't want them to give up, and that means you have to grit your teeth and bear it when they complain about how something sucks or admit they have a "guilty pleasure" like dairy ice cream.
Some additional notes:
^1 imo meat should only be harvested from animals that have died from age-related causes. "But the meat will be too tough!" Yeah? Hispanic people figured out how to deal with that a long time ago. Make fajitas! I still eat meat anyway though, despite knowing they're slaughtered and don't die of old age.
^2 when it comes to leather, my experience is that natural leather lasts a lot longer than faux leather, and faux leather tends to use plastics. Additionally, I've heard that while "leather is a byproduct of the meat industry" is mostly a myth, it's my understanding that there are "ethical" ways of getting leather, e.g. by taking cast-offs that'd normally be trashed, leather harvested from animals that have died from old age; you just have to be very conscious about where you're buying leather from. I'd be curious if anyone knows about any non-petroleum-based faux or lab-grown leathers. I mean, it's literally just skin, how hard can it really be to grow that in a lab?
How come you're so opposed to the concept of, like, self-esteem that you think it's worse than death? Like, someone having high self esteem is a worse thing in your emotions than something dying. Why is pride worse than death to you?
I love being an annoying vegan because it was annoying vegans who made me go vegan. I was once like you, I knew the animal ag industry was fucked, but I still liked eating meat and dairy. Then eventually the cognitive dissonance caught up to me and I realised that enjoying meat and dairy wasn't a good enough excuse to support a cruel industry that is quite literally destroying the planet.
At least you're not in denial about what you're supporting and you're not spreading misinformation. I'm chill with that, but I think you're wrong about what's effective at converting people to veganism.
PS: people make pineapple and cactus leathers nowadays, I've heard of a mushroom based one, too. Not sure on how the durability and longevity compares just yet but it seems pretty tough so far. Also not sure on the processes involved and how 'clean' they are.
Yeah there were some animal rights people that ran out onto the field at a ballgame I was at. The fine for running onto the field is $5000. There were two of them, so that was $10,000.
TV broadcasts don't show people that run out onto the field since they don't want to encourage it. So the only people that saw their banner were people at the ballpark. Someone shouted "get off the field you hippies" and the whole section laughed.
They probably should've just donated the $10,000 to an animal shelter.
Still wish to see more of a rise of kangatarianism. Basically, starts in Australia, where the land has an overpopulation of kangaroos. You only eat their meat, helping the ecosystem equalize. There are similar species in America that we have way too many of in the wild.
To be clear, this practice couldn’t sustain for decades of popularity, but it would mean people don’t have to give up meat as a whole, while we continue to research tastier alternatives.