I’m okay with bringing up the contradiction, we all need to be held accountable but too often this can be used as a purity test.
Food is a deeply personal issue that we should try not to moralize, I understand that can be difficult when there are real consequences to the climate and suffering of animals but If you moralize food you will lose people.
I say this is a 7-year vegan. I understand this is a meme but memes normalize culture and it is best to lead with invitation, not accusation.
Food is a deeply personal issue that we should try not to moralize, I understand that can be difficult
Personal issues end where others right to exist begin. A personal choice is what color choice you wanna be wear in the morning.
If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it. And yes. Choosing to eat meat has victims. You’re eating your victims.
You’re not going to convince me, you’re preaching to the choir but you messaging isn’t meeting people where they’re at and will leave us with a lonely moral victory.
Homie. If there was a magical sequence of words that made people understand that exploiting and committing violence against those who are weaker you was wrong the world would be such a better place already.
I think the only way to achieve that is slowly through better education. But even that is difficult when people distrust education.
Education is how we win, and it is slow because it has to undo the cultural normalization of meat as an identity. The meat industry has spent decades lobbying for subsidies and advertising meat as part of the American way of life.
It is really hard to fight that because once something becomes part of a person’s sense of self, attacking it engages the ego. It is the same issue with car dominance.
I think it is important to keep in mind that victory is not an all or nothing game. A lot of leftist ideals interlock with a thought structure that makes people more open to persuasion through reason.
That change comes a little bit at a time, not by one well reasoned argument, but by seeing happy, thriving communities as living proof.
At the same time that “little bit at a time” change can 100% come from a well reasoned argument, the first step i took was to cut out beef since it’s by far the worst food for the climate and it really isn’t difficult to stop eating it (both pork and chicken are readily available and tasty, so it’s basically just a matter of checking ingredient lists for stuff like meatballs and sausages).
I think the key thing is just that people have to be presented with an immediate action they can take that isn’t some huge sacrifice, and ideally actually benefits them in some way.
Like to make people drive less: Maybe ask them if they’ve considered that an electric moped would be MUCH cheaper to operate, way easier to find parking for at work, and means that a person at home can still have access to the car. That’s very reasonable for a lot of people and might well lead to them ditching the car entirely.
In modern society, almost all personal choices have victims, it’s all connected.
If you want to argue the degree of separation between the choice and the victim that’s an interesting conversation to have.
If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it.
If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context), that implies a lack of imagination, mental flexibility and a level of privilege that taints anything else you might say with the idea :
“If they can’t think of a single scenario where that statement doesn’t apply, how much thinking are they really putting in to the rest of what they say”
For some, eating meat is life and death, through no fault of their own.
Oof. It gets repetitive hearing the same arguments.
In modern society, almost all personal choices have victims, it’s all connected.
This is the there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism argument.
True however there are degrees of difficulty and effect of your actions. Picking soy milk at a super market instead of milk takes barely no effort and has discernible good effects. Sure there’s also exploitation in the making of the soy milk. That’s a different issue. Which if you care enough I can also point you in the direction that I choose to combat that.
Evil existing isn’t a sensible moral justification for inflicting more evil into the world. Do your part to make the world a better place.
If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time
This is the let’s make this impersonal and ask “what do words even mean” argument.
Dont be obtuse is my answer to that.
For some, eating meat is life and death, through no fault of their own.
This is the “what if you were on a deserted island and there was only a single cow in it. Would you eat it” argument.
I’m not sure if your statement is true. But sure. If that is true. They get a pass. I’ve had a meeting with the other vegans. They all agree too.
That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.
Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.
It is indeed the “no ethical consumerism” argument and as I said it’s an interesting conversation to have.
I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.
That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.
Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.
And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.
It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.
It suggests you don’t understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.
I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am “being real” when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don’t adhere to your ideal.
Assuming Walmart was your example because it’s what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.
Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that’s not even close to a guarantee you’d be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.
The easy example is literal starvation, where it’s not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.
This isn’t an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.
I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.
Food in a bottle with little to no prep is where it’s at.
I’m still waiting for them food cubes from starfield
CHUNKS
When i can occasionally get focused on some meal prep (or remember that meal prep exists) just coking up an industrial sized VAT of generic food+sauce and sticking that in the freezer is also a good one, if you can negotiate with the brain to make it happen.
They get a pass. If they are ever stranded in a deserted island and must kill to survive they get a pass too. Same for if they are about to starve and the only option is hunting a gazelle.
All the other vegans and I agree. We had a meeting.
That’s not even a rounding error in the amount of cruelty and murder we inflict upon animals though. The main concern right now is stop the senseless cycle of breeding little mutant animals in hellish conditions just to murder them at a young age. The scale of that dwarfs all other forms of animal abuse by a few orders of magnitude.
The Vegan Society defines veganism as a philosophy and way of living that seeks to exclude as far as is possible and practicable all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.
I feel like that is a good definition and a good way to go about it.
I agree when talking with normies, but this is a socialist community on a mostly socialist platform. Like you shouldn’t be moralizing about meat when canvasing, but it’s fine to do so at a DSA meeting where people are already aware of the problems of exploitation and domination.
I think there’s a distinction to be made between “This thing is bad”, and “Doing this thing makes you a bad person”.
Telling people in a gentle and understanding way that they’re doing something bad, is good. You just have to be very careful to adjust your language to the people your speaking to.
But saying that people are bad for doing the bad thing is pretty shitty, it might feel righteous but it’s extremely unlikely to result in anything but alienating those you talk to.
This is why i’m “flexitarian”, mostly just eat chicken and i try to eat as little as possible, but i’ll eat the odd bit of other meat depending on circumstances. I acknowledge that eating meat is “objectively” bad, but that there’s also a limit to how much i can actually change my diet without feeling miserable, and it’s quite nice to be able to tell people “Well you can just do what i do, sticking to chicken is really not that difficult at all, give it a try!”
I’m okay with bringing up the contradiction, we all need to be held accountable but too often this can be used as a purity test.
Food is a deeply personal issue that we should try not to moralize, I understand that can be difficult when there are real consequences to the climate and suffering of animals but If you moralize food you will lose people.
I say this is a 7-year vegan. I understand this is a meme but memes normalize culture and it is best to lead with invitation, not accusation.
Personal issues end where others right to exist begin. A personal choice is what color choice you wanna be wear in the morning.
If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it. And yes. Choosing to eat meat has victims. You’re eating your victims.
You’re not going to convince me, you’re preaching to the choir but you messaging isn’t meeting people where they’re at and will leave us with a lonely moral victory.
Homie. If there was a magical sequence of words that made people understand that exploiting and committing violence against those who are weaker you was wrong the world would be such a better place already.
I think the only way to achieve that is slowly through better education. But even that is difficult when people distrust education.
Education is how we win, and it is slow because it has to undo the cultural normalization of meat as an identity. The meat industry has spent decades lobbying for subsidies and advertising meat as part of the American way of life.
It is really hard to fight that because once something becomes part of a person’s sense of self, attacking it engages the ego. It is the same issue with car dominance.
I think it is important to keep in mind that victory is not an all or nothing game. A lot of leftist ideals interlock with a thought structure that makes people more open to persuasion through reason.
That change comes a little bit at a time, not by one well reasoned argument, but by seeing happy, thriving communities as living proof.
Indeed. Great username btw.
deleted by creator
At the same time that “little bit at a time” change can 100% come from a well reasoned argument, the first step i took was to cut out beef since it’s by far the worst food for the climate and it really isn’t difficult to stop eating it (both pork and chicken are readily available and tasty, so it’s basically just a matter of checking ingredient lists for stuff like meatballs and sausages).
I think the key thing is just that people have to be presented with an immediate action they can take that isn’t some huge sacrifice, and ideally actually benefits them in some way.
Like to make people drive less: Maybe ask them if they’ve considered that an electric moped would be MUCH cheaper to operate, way easier to find parking for at work, and means that a person at home can still have access to the car. That’s very reasonable for a lot of people and might well lead to them ditching the car entirely.
In modern society, almost all personal choices have victims, it’s all connected.
If you want to argue the degree of separation between the choice and the victim that’s an interesting conversation to have.
If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context), that implies a lack of imagination, mental flexibility and a level of privilege that taints anything else you might say with the idea :
“If they can’t think of a single scenario where that statement doesn’t apply, how much thinking are they really putting in to the rest of what they say”
For some, eating meat is life and death, through no fault of their own.
Oof. It gets repetitive hearing the same arguments.
This is the there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism argument.
True however there are degrees of difficulty and effect of your actions. Picking soy milk at a super market instead of milk takes barely no effort and has discernible good effects. Sure there’s also exploitation in the making of the soy milk. That’s a different issue. Which if you care enough I can also point you in the direction that I choose to combat that.
Evil existing isn’t a sensible moral justification for inflicting more evil into the world. Do your part to make the world a better place.
This is the let’s make this impersonal and ask “what do words even mean” argument.
Dont be obtuse is my answer to that.
This is the “what if you were on a deserted island and there was only a single cow in it. Would you eat it” argument.
I’m not sure if your statement is true. But sure. If that is true. They get a pass. I’ve had a meeting with the other vegans. They all agree too.
That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.
Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.
It is indeed the “no ethical consumerism” argument and as I said it’s an interesting conversation to have.
I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.
And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.
It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.
It suggests you don’t understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.
I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am “being real” when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don’t adhere to your ideal.
Assuming Walmart was your example because it’s what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.
Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that’s not even close to a guarantee you’d be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.
The easy example is literal starvation, where it’s not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.
This isn’t an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.
I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.
edit: clean up
Honestly, I would be vegan-ish rn if not for executive disfunction.
I might have the cash, but just eat meat slop and peanut butter
soylent is a great fit for my executive disfunction
Fucking right?
Food in a bottle with little to no prep is where it’s at.
I’m still waiting for them food cubes from starfield
CHUNKS
When i can occasionally get focused on some meal prep (or remember that meal prep exists) just coking up an industrial sized VAT of generic food+sauce and sticking that in the freezer is also a good one, if you can negotiate with the brain to make it happen.
hmm, I’m interested in what @shapis@lemmy.ml take on this would be.
They get a pass. If they are ever stranded in a deserted island and must kill to survive they get a pass too. Same for if they are about to starve and the only option is hunting a gazelle.
All the other vegans and I agree. We had a meeting.
That’s not even a rounding error in the amount of cruelty and murder we inflict upon animals though. The main concern right now is stop the senseless cycle of breeding little mutant animals in hellish conditions just to murder them at a young age. The scale of that dwarfs all other forms of animal abuse by a few orders of magnitude.
The Vegan Society defines veganism as a philosophy and way of living that seeks to exclude as far as is possible and practicable all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.
I feel like that is a good definition and a good way to go about it.
I fucking KNEW it, secret vegan Star Chamber is always on my bingo card.
All i need now “proof that koala’s control the weather” and some sort of under-earth morlock analogue.
but yeah, meat industry is horrific, as is a lot of the underpinnings of modern society, my previous response wasn’t arguing against that.
I agree when talking with normies, but this is a socialist community on a mostly socialist platform. Like you shouldn’t be moralizing about meat when canvasing, but it’s fine to do so at a DSA meeting where people are already aware of the problems of exploitation and domination.
I think there’s a distinction to be made between “This thing is bad”, and “Doing this thing makes you a bad person”.
Telling people in a gentle and understanding way that they’re doing something bad, is good. You just have to be very careful to adjust your language to the people your speaking to.
But saying that people are bad for doing the bad thing is pretty shitty, it might feel righteous but it’s extremely unlikely to result in anything but alienating those you talk to.
This is why i’m “flexitarian”, mostly just eat chicken and i try to eat as little as possible, but i’ll eat the odd bit of other meat depending on circumstances. I acknowledge that eating meat is “objectively” bad, but that there’s also a limit to how much i can actually change my diet without feeling miserable, and it’s quite nice to be able to tell people “Well you can just do what i do, sticking to chicken is really not that difficult at all, give it a try!”
People are deeply, unflinchingly weird about food. They’re weird about a lot of things, but most of all food.