i meant the vegans should get you, cos you are ok with non vegans
Can someone tell me why I see so many reactionary vegans? I know one or two that are chill about it but everyone else I’ve interacted with are either insufferable straightedgers, libertarian anti vax people, or sam Harris fans.
Vegan here. There are vegans across the political spectrum, just like any humans. It is frustrating to see right wing vegans. Yet we are more left/liberal than the average person, and research backs this up.
I think maybe the ones I know that are chill are more in the leftist artist camp while all the reactionary ones are loudest about being vegan.
Is it possible that people who became vegan from being Straight Edge later became more reactionary? It always seemed to me that more than a few Straight Edgers might be a little more prone to being fascist, just based on observations from when that was more popular.
Ya that's possible. But I don't know enough Straight Edge people to comment meaningfully.
my experience has been the opposite actually. there are plenty of reactionaries and libs but there are more leftists per capita than the general pop
As an aside, as someone who's into organic food, I've noticed in recent years that there are now plenty of chuds, libertarians, and all sorts of political affiliations among people who eat organic.
Rod Dreher of all people wrote a book on this phenomenon called “Crunchy Cons.”
Me too. Although you could use vegetable shortening
Ok, as a life long vegan, don't be afraid of these people. Also take as long as you need to go full vegan as it takes time to figure out fully what to do. You can basically ask any vegan communities where to start and they will happily give you recipes.
You should start by trying making some vegan food. It is super easy to find stuff online and at restaurants (usually a bit more pricey). Hell, even Walmart sells vegan alternatives. It is so much easier to be vegan in the states now than it was for my parents like 25 years ago.
i try not to eat meat but in my area its the best way to get highly dense calories for cheap or on the go. mostly just stomach problems makes me low key vegetarian
Convenience is a big road block for me in going vegan, so I can definitely empathize with this. I feel like it's pretty easy to find vegetarian options for fast/prepared foods, but much more difficult when it comes to vegan options. I think what I might try doing is vegan meal prep on the weekends, then primarily eat that throughout the week.
The only thing I miss about not being vegan is just grabbing something without any concern. That being said, Taco Bell, Subway, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Chipotle, all kinds of places have stuff that you can eat in a pinch. And even the shittiest town in america has a walmart with morningstar stuff in it.
A generation ago, the equivalent was jumping into a thread about some television series and loudly proclaiming, "Is this something I would need a TV to understand??" Some people just can't help moral policing. The original virtue signal.
there actually is a sound ethical and ecological basis to veganism beyond pure moralizing tho. seems like a false equivalency
but hard agree that the “sorry, i don’t own a television” crowd were annoying as fuck
Your consumption of television contributes to the corporatocracy, ad agencies, and the capitalist free market system that is bringing society and the environment down. There is no ethical consumption of television.
No consumption is ethical, but some things are a lot less harmful than others. Like if some TV show gave the creators PTSD like working in a slaughterhouse does, it would be reasonable to shit on that show and bully people into not watching it.
It's not really a competition, but slaughterhouse PTSD probably pales in comparison to the PTSD suffered at the hands of Hollywood's penchant for "turning" young starlets.
:sadness: but i dont watch tv.
like eighty percent of my tv knowledge is saturday morning cartoons from when i was a kid and the rest is knowledge i osmosed from other people talking about things i dont understand or showing me bootlegged anime subs on a projector while saying "do you see? do you see?"
i just want you to know why i dont know wtf the tv reference joke you made meant bb im sorry
Til the animal agriculture industry doesn't contribute to the most land use greenhouse gas emissions of any single industry. The industry that's destroying the Amazon for cattle grazing displacing indigenous communities. And literal trillions of conscious beings have no moral worth. Wild
land use greenhouse gas emissions
Which accounts for a whopping 11.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions, including plant agriculture and forestry. And even then most of that is CO2 emissions which can be addressed without changing how we eat. I'd rather focus on CO2.
The industry that’s destroying the Amazon for cattle grazing displacing indigenous communities.
Yeah, that's shit and shouldn't happen, but that's capitalism in general and not a necessity of meat production.
First of all 11.6% is a significant portion of emmissions and an individual can reduce their carbon impact much more than that on average by being vegan given most do not participate in many of the much more c02 intense industries(per capita). And no we can pick changing the c02 or the land use. Cattle either need tons of land to graze grass or need to be fed grains/legumes like soy which is also destroying the amazon and 85% of soy production is for the animal ag industry. This isnt even mentioning the methane cattle releases. In addition if you recall your bio class energy is converted at an effeciency of 10% for each trophic level so we use 10 times the land for an equivalent amount of calories(which sidenote meat is the leading carcinogen in western countries and contributes to diabetes and most importantly heart disease) we simply do not have enough land in western countries to grow feed for these animals so we outsource(read imperialize) production in the global south.
an individual can reduce their carbon impact
Individual climate action is useless. It's the industries that need to be changed.
we simply do not have enough land in western countries to grow feed for these animals
We absolutely do. America alone is mostly huge swaths of nothingness. And land use itself doesn't automatically equal greenhouse gas emissions.
This isn't even mentioning the methane cattle releases.
Methane in general accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is 80%. You may disagree that the 10% doesn't need to be addressed, but that doesn't make your position the definitely morally correct one.
Individual action changes the incentives for thise industries to operate. Again there is no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean all consumption is equally unethical. And no we don't have that land america is the closest but one a lot of it is unsuitable for grazing for various reasons(hilly not the right climate etc.) Second that land is also stolen and to feed our current meat consumption if we were to produce all of our own feed we would need to deforest large swaths of our untouched land to prepare land to plant grain wr badically level it to nothing it would mean mass deforestation and increased use of pesticides to keep crop yields up damaging the environment further. Methane also traps heat up to 100 times more in a five year period than c02 and again the animal ag industry is the single biggest producer of greenhouse gasses bar none including c02
Individual action changes the incentives for those industries to operate.
This is an extremely liberal take. I'm not even going to argue it.
Methane also traps heat up to 100 times more in a five year period than c02
The 10% figure is in "CO2 Equivalent", basically normalized for its effect on the atmosphere.
again the animal ag industry is the single biggest producer of greenhouse gasses bar none including c02
This is just plain false. Agriculture as a whole accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emmisions.
Edit: To use global emissions instead: "Agriculture, Forestry, and other land use" is 24%, so animal ag is a fraction of that.
Animal agriculture accounts for as much as 85% of emissions from agriculture as a whole. And aknowledging market forces exist isn't like anti leftist lmao it's just not the most effecient way to allocate resources when your goal is to have the best outcomes for the most amount of people. Leftism doesn't like deny supply and demand exist lmao they are clearly mechanisms in capitalist economy they just aren't mechanisms designed to serve the interests of the global working class
85% of 24% is 20.4%. Most of that being CO2 from electricity and transportation. Which, again, can be addressed without changing how we eat. Methane emissions just aren't significant enough to require a lifestyle change much larger than what is needed to address the much more important CO2 emissions.
May I suggest you Get yourself some coconut milk and curry paste. fry that tofu up with some red or green curry paste and veggies, add coco milk, amazing. Especially over rice. That’s one of my favorites and you can’t go wrong with any group of veggies you like. I’m a big mushroom and pepper person.
heck yeah. throw in some chickpeas, ginger, maybe garlic, some chillies, cumin tumeric and coriander and i am hype for this curry
Petition to rename this community /c/omnivore so we can just have vegan posts and non-vegan posts separate.
I don't regularly read c/food comments, but if I were creating a food comm, I'd set it as a point of policy to not allow moralizing about ingredients in the comments.
EDIT: Looks like it already is:
Be respectful in threads regarding processed foods and animal products, shaming people does no good!
That entire section is about apes. Last I checked most omnivores here don't eat apes.
The first link is, you edited the second in after my comment.
The second link basically amounts to "animals rights activists exist".
I mean, no shit animal rights activists exist, I never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily right or morally superior.
This entire exchange has basically been "yes they are people", "no they aren't", "yes they are". You haven't provided evidence that animals are people, you've simply linked to articles that say some people believe animals are people. Which sure, there are, but that doesn't leave room for any response other than "I don't agree".
There is one good thing I got out of one of your links however:
Other theorists attempt to demarcate between degrees of personhood. For example, Peter Singer's two-tiered account distinguishes between basic sentience and the higher standard of self-consciousness which constitutes personhood. Wynn Schwartz has offered a Paradigm Case Formulation of Persons as a format allowing judges to identify qualities of personhood in different entities. Julian Friedland has advanced a seven-tiered account based on cognitive capacity and linguistic mastery. Amanda Stoel suggested that rights should be granted based on a scale of degrees of personhood, allowing entities currently denied any right to be recognized some rights, but not as many.
This makes much more sense to me than just insisting animals are people. Dolphins might deserve some rights, maybe apes deserve some rights, but cows don't.
Counterpoint this is on you to prove come up with a definition of personhood that isnt self defining (i.e. a person is a human). That excludes all animals(or all factory farmed animals). That also includes all humans. For instance if you define personhood by intelligence then you need to accept that gore instance a human child of developmental age comparable to the intelligence of an animal you consume if they were stopped from growing up(lets say a 2 year old with some debilitating disease that will kill them in the next 6 months). Then that child is not only not a person but you are morally allowed to butcher that child for meat.
You define it for species' as a whole, not for individuals. And a definition that fits your criteria already exists: sapience.
Im going to assume you mean wisdom by sapience as they are etymylogical synonyms and I can find no other definition that would seem to fit your case. I doubt many would call young children wise and even if one did are you comfortable saying an unwise human has no moral worth? Can you kill an unwise human? Can you eat them. Also I cant think of a solid reason why one would define personhood on the level of species but if we do take it as fact. What makes you think every single animal species has no sapience? I don't think you have any evidence that they dont beyond a gut feeling. If you're looking at it from a risk perspective youd rather be wrong about them being people than wrong about them not being people. If you're wrong about not killing things that are not people it's no problem if you're wrong about killing something that is a person thats a big problem. And surely if sapience is this magical quality it would exist within the brain. Therefore the safe bet would to avoid eating things with brains yes?
What I mean is something closer to:
The ability to know things and reason with that knowledge.
Which is not at all the same thing as the usual definition of "wisdom". The things you "know" don't even have to be correct and the reasoning doesn't have to be very good, it just has to be present. The dumbest person you know is still sapient.
Again you judge based on the species as a whole, not the individual.
The ability to know things and reason with that knowledge is absolutely present in animals like cows and pigs. Ill choose a relevant example cows have to get pregnant to produce milk and when they do their children are taken away from them. This is obviously very distressing. As this continues cows get more distressed by their children being taken away knowing they are not coming back furthermore when allowed adequate room to do so they will try to protect their children from farmers trying to take them away. They know something( I have just given birth and this is my child, all my other children were taken away by these farmers ergo I must protect my new child being taken away by these farmers) this seems to fit your definition of sapience and is just once example of many
Vegan comrades spamming this point everywhere isn't productive either.
In case you haven't see this comment, I think the best thing to do is to make this community explicitly for omnivores, as opposed to /c/vegan, which already exists.
Vegans don't want to see posts with meat, omnivores don't want vegans moralizing in their posts about pepporoni pizza or whatever. Just separate them.
You can err on the safe side without including literally every animal. Maybe dolphins are sapient, idk, we can give them rights (or really just leave them alone). But cows are far enough away from sapience.
That's a disagreement over whether sapience or sentience is what matters. Neither point is morally superior and believing yours shouldn't be required of others. And yeah, if you believe it's sentience then eating meat would be bad.
I try to and it is rare, lack of support for comrades using processed foods is more common.
"The place for all kinds of food discussion: from photos of dishes you’ve made to recipes or even advice on how to eat healthier and reduce animal products not only for your health but the health of our environment"
Can all meat and probably egg photos need a CW in c/food? Food really good, I don't like corpses
E: as a vegan i wanna be in food spaces, but meat is legitimately triggering and you'll probably get less angry vegans in comments with meat if you do this. like i gotta walk through an autopsy aisle to get to the freezer section, just being able to learn about loose leaf tea and chill and not see dead shit without wanting to would be nice
Yeah without a doubt I floated requiring nfsw tag but it didnt get received well.
All pre butchered requires a nfsw tag and I think a cw on meat/egg is more than reasonable.
The best eat cheap and healthy are vegan
is an ideology and it being full of food just reinforces the idea that vegan = diet and not an ethical stance = vegan
I think it'd be more than fair to just flair things as 'vegan/nonvegan' and allow people to filter out content they don't want to see.
