Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

moonlune wrote (edited )

they're anarchists in theory.

I'm even more frustrated by vegans who go out of their way to buy "vegan" fasfood from mega corporations.

12

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

omg yeah. I've been thinking alot about how mainstream veganism kinda doesn't get veganism imo. The whole buying beyond meat at burger king thing is a prime example of said thing.

11

EndlessAnarchy wrote

I'm even more frustrated by vegans who go out of their way to buy "vegan" fasfood from mega corporations.

THE WORST

11

ukuleleclass wrote

i understand the sentiment of not buying vegan fast food and i try not. sometimes though, i just don’t have time to cook something or am too depressed to get anything else you know ?

4

moonlune wrote (edited )

yeah I won't blame you, nobody is perfect and I low-key do appreciate having an easy vegan option in a pinch or when I eat out with friends who are kinda fragile. But there's no need to do the megacorp's advertising for them.

7

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Not really coming at people who aren't vegan right now. More just like, holy shit people really don't know what to the things they say entail. Like they know what fighting or heck just being a civilian around a war is many many times harder than being vegan.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea that someone would think they would want a d could fucking help kill people in a bloody war but like just no eating meat is far too hard. WTF is this person's thought process

10

veuzi wrote

Smashing window quick and fun, straining beans slow and boring

7

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

anarchist never say they aren't vegan bc its boring. Its almost always its too hard bc I"m so oppressed

9

bloodrose wrote

Ooh, I'm gonna admit how much I suck right now!! :) :)

So, my morals are vegan is best - animal liberation now! However, my misbehaving uterus is causing iron problems and so I'm eating buckets of red meat two weeks a month. I could work harder at finding vegan sources of iron and suffer more during the two weeks of period and blood clots but I'm totally not doing it. I am going to try keto vegan after my uterus is either corrected or removed.

However, I think your point actually fits me. Because I do not have the physical energy or stamina to fight an insurrection. My anarchism is more about my individual relationships than a macro view. So, perhaps, if I were one who could suffer better for veganism, I'd be better at suffering for battle.....

I don't read your statement as a litmus test for anarchism, per se. It sounds like you're saying "if you can't work on veganism, how do I know you can work on revolution?"

7

gone_to_croatan wrote

My anarchism is more about my individual relationships than a macro view

The best, or more essential, imho

8

zoom_zip wrote

buckets of red meat

i know you didn’t mean this literally but i pictured someone (my mental interpretation of you) eating a chum bucket of raw meat and gagged a little

6

bloodrose wrote

I mean, I feel pretty sick about it, too, which probably explains the word choice. Nothing like being ravenously hungry for something you normally find repulsive enough to gag when you think of eating. I can't fucking wait for menopause, yo.

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

if you can't work on veganism, how do I know you can work on revolution?"

Yeah basically.

For clarity on the reasoning behind my post. It's the summer and being stuck doing farm labor is like about as close as I can get to the emotional resiliency of for example the typical guerillas day in the life. And I wasn't really talking about ability but emotional strength. Getting shot at and killing people is one major thing but even just the concept u constantly have to move and u would just have to constantly tech for miles no matter how hot or how cold. Sometimes not being able to sleep bc the enemy is coming or running out of food and having to hike for miles and days without food ect.

Being able to practically do stuff is one but the emotional ability is another. Pushing yourself to work and work when it's hot af outside is really hard. And I had a thought to myself. I'm managing this quite well and not super concerned but shit not that I would wanna fight in a war but Im still couldn't handle the emotional trials of war despite having had times working like 80 hour weeks of manual labor in the blistering hot sun which included fighting. That shit just breaks me. 30 or 40 or manageable but fuck if I can't even take all that war would be something I'm not even close to emotionally strong enough to deal with.

Then along that thought I just of all the revolutionaries who are gonna fight capitalism but wine on Reddit about how hard it is to be vegan. Like the lack of perspective is ridiculous. If u cant handle the emotional trials of not eating cheese u r so so so far away from being able to handle even the non co.batjve aspects of being an insurgent. It's just a massive lack of perspective I wanted to poke fun at.

And I'm not really questioning it I'm more making a statement of fact. If someone cant handle the relatively miniscule emotional distress of becoming vegan they will not be able to emotionally handle being a soldier full stop. Plus if they don't have the material status to eat vegan they almost certainly don't have the resources to fight the government. War is expensive as hell.

I just like taking any chance I can get to absolutely demolish the idea of anarchist insurrection or revolution bc I don't like it ideologically, practically and I have yet to talk to someone who advocated for it who even had a ounce of idea about what doing what they suggest would be like. So U just take every chance I can get to make advocating insurrection to be uncool and make people look bad for suggesting it.

Basically u get it. I think u can do a lotta anarchy and not b vegan. But anyone who is emotionally ready to fight a war would have no problem being vegan basically.

5

bloodrose wrote

Basically u get it.

Yay! I'm giving myself a cookie.

I just like taking any chance I can get to absolutely demolish the idea of anarchist insurrection or revolution bc I don't like it ideologically, practically and I have yet to talk to someone who advocated for it who even had a ounce of idea about what doing what they suggest would be like.

You might like a podcast I started listening to yesterday called "It Could Happen Here." It's an imagining of how a modern civil war of the kind we're seeing in other parts of the world could happen in the US. The podcaster doing it is a journalist and has seen some shit. He's painted a very uncomfortable picture and I think people who think they're revolutionaries would not like the reality he imagines.

Also, your job would murder me. I don't know how you do it.

5

halfway_prince wrote

i think fixating on any single act as the easiest or most basic act of anarchy can allow you to gatekeep anarchy infinitely.

For example, i could pose a similar question to you - "can someone clarify something for me? So what's the deal with young white anarchists buying land that rightfully should be rematriated to the original indigenous stewards but also thinking they'll eventually be part of a movement to abolish private property etc. Shouldn't they just squat?"

You might argue - well sure in an ideal world i wouldn't have to own land to function in this society and would rather just live in squats, but i've made the personal calculation that it's necessary for me to make some ideological compromises, but on the whole i live a life pretty consistent with my ideals.

I think most folks are just constantly doing the best they can and constantly making the calculations and doing what makes the most sense to themselves.

There's no single thing that makes you an anarchist, and honestly it seems a pretty worthless endeavor trying to figure out every little thing you can nitpick to label people definitively NOT anarchist.

a couple other things besides "food deserts" that make being vegan not the most accessible: 1) knowledge of how to convert to a healthy vegan diet. 2) family needs (partner, kids, parents). 3) time - being vegan just objectively requires more time cooking. 4) cultural background - meat is important to many cultures, celebrations, etc.

4

LittleHelp wrote

a couple other things besides "food deserts" that make being vegan not the most accessible

I think a fundamental issue in these discussions is the way people disregard the message people are trying to convey. Like, there is a ton of people who absolutely can go vegan if they wanted to. It might or might not be a majority, but either way, it is a significant portion. And when these people are called out, the response is to list the most marginalized people imaginable and explain why not everyone can go vegan; which is then in turn usually used as absolution by people who still could go vegan, if they cared.

i think fixating on any single act as the easiest or most basic act of anarchy can allow you to gatekeep anarchy infinitely.

Sure, I agree with the overall message of your post that gatekeeping anarchism based on singular issues is pointless. I'd still argue that issues of direct life and death have a special urgency.

10

halfway_prince wrote (edited )

fosho, I'm in agreement with your analysis, but i think what i was primarily trying to express is just exhaustion with this kind of reddit-reactionary bullshit coming up on raddle.

i think this discussion and the fact that it's at the top of my feed is just sooooooo fucking lame and i can't help myself from responding sometimes

like a post essentially saying "if you're not vegan you can't really be committed to a movement toward liberation" is like the most exhaustingly pedantic, western-centric approach to anarchy i could possibly imagine and seems to exist near-solely in the internet sphere.

edit: this was a reactionary comment and maybe just too whiney. would delete but like i said it that's there whatever.

−2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

how lol. Its just a true statement, if you are so powerless u cant go to a grocery store and buy and cook food you are not even like 5% close to being capable of fighting in a war. Bc its basic logic that cooking vegan food is way way easier than fucking killing cops and the army. And its funny af to make fun of people pretending they can be a soldier when they can't even cook food.

6

halfway_prince wrote

aghhhh lettuce!! even if you believe this statement wholeheartedly, it's just not "a true statement"!!

I'm sorry to get upset and always position myself against you, but you really have a lot of influence on the discussion that happen on this site and i'm so frustrated that you fixate on stuff like this!!

People who are strong can act weak. People who are weak can act strong!

You are great for being vegan!! but not everyone has come to the exact ideological conclusions as you!! that doesn't make them less capable of engaging in a fight for our common goal!!

5

[deleted] wrote

−1

halfway_prince wrote

if you look at my other comments in this thread the point i'm trying to make is that all of your (and other's) responses to the 1-4 list are totally fair and solid and i'm in agreement with. But those refutations don't change the fact that they are barriers to access to veganism, and not everyone has reached those same conclusions or given it the same amount of critical thought! converting to veganism takes sustained energy and engagement with the theory and practice of veganism and we need to approach that with more compassion. You clearly have thought a lot about this and not everyone has. There's a way you can advance veganism but judging from a lot of the responses i'm receiving, don't think this thread is on the right track rn.

also i see you implying that i am not myself vegan so i'll copy the same thing i posted below:

"also for all y'all downvoting me - go find your local Food Not Bombs group and dedicate some time to actually providing accessible vegan food to your community. I'm out there every week helping to provide that shit to my community but when the other mutual aid group that happens to cook meat comes around asking if we can support their cooking efforts too you know i'm right there with them as well."

I don't like that i need to say that and like "build some credibility" for you to not make personal judgements about my arguments being based in selfish justifications (since i never implied that i'm not vegan) but i'm also understanding that maybe it will help you to internalize the message i'm trying to get across.

re. the common goal thing - i should have clarified i'm not referring to some unified goal across all "anarchists" i'm literally referring to me and lettuceleafer since i've been following their posting for a long time and (so far as i can tell) i agree with the vast majority of their praxis and general ideology and think they're a dope person almost all around.

I support you in finding your own personal goal esp if it's animal liberation (even if that's not precisely what mine is).

4

zoom_zip wrote

  1. time - being vegan just objectively requires more time cooking.

please explain how

  1. cultural background - meat is important to many cultures, celebrations, etc.

is this an acceptable excuse for any other shitty behaviour? forced marriage? female genital mutilation? are those okay because they’re cultural?

8

halfway_prince wrote

  1. sorry my use of objectively is wrong - this is based on anecdotal experience of me and my group of vegans who cook together. We kinda just all agree it takes more time but that's worth it for us. Mostly was referring to protein specific (dried beans vs. eggs / chicken etc.), and in that case assuming you want to minimize other environmental impacts (buying dried beans, avoiding tofu b/c it always comes in plastic etc.).

  2. i would caution against jumping to extreme examples for the shock factor and re-emphasize that i used the word accessible. My whole point here is not to argue that veganism is not the correct moral path in my judgement (as i've expressed numerous times on this site in similar arguments, i'm vegan and have been for 8+ years and not that it matters but have "converted" many people just through teaching and sharing my knowledge of vegan cooking). For me this whole list just comes down to the fact that we shouldn't ignore the reality that the ease of dietary decisions is the same for every individual and it's not just the straw man of "food desert". Specifically the argument that is the origin of this post is - why do folks who believe themselves anarchic in some regards not engage in the anarchic act of veganism. All i'm saying is that the answer to this lies in the fact that accessibility to veganism isn't as clean and easy as folks in this thread are arguing and if we actually care about engaging with the root goal of all of us - having more vegan diets in the world - we need to stop yelling at redditors and labeling them weak and ideologically inconsistent, and start thinking about the actual barriers that exist.

Also for all y'all downvoting me - go find your local Food Not Bombs group and dedicate some time to actually providing accessible vegan food to your community. I'm out there every week helping to provide that shit to my community but when the other mutual aid group that happens to cook meat comes around asking if we can support their cooking efforts too you know i'm right there with them as well.

6

zoom_zip wrote

All i'm saying is that the answer to this lies in the fact that accessibility to veganism isn't as clean and easy as folks in this thread are arguing and if we actually care about engaging with the root goal of all of us - having more vegan diets in the world - we need to stop yelling at redditors and labeling them weak and ideologically inconsistent, and start thinking about the actual barriers that exist.

okay i’m gonna use this as a moment for personal reflection if that’s okay. i think i could take a position to keep arguing against your stance, but you’ve probably heard it before. and i do think—in some cases—you’re right about accessibility, or even motivation.

however, for me—in the same way you expressed exhaustion elsewhere in this thread for the unrelenting attack from vegans (me included) in online anarchist spaces—i think i’ve reached a point of exhaustion with trying to discuss these nuances with meat eaters, because—anecdotally—they never apply to them. if it was a case that accessibility was a genuine issue for someone, i would like to work to help them, but usually it’s just another excuse that they want to pile onto the list of excuses to cover up the fact that actually they just don’t care. and they’re not receptive to any discussion, it’s just an attempt to silence the critique against meat.

the reason i approach these conversations from a position of such hostility is because to me my veganism and anarchy are the same thing. they are an attack against hierarchy/dominion/the status quo/the engine of civilisation/etc.

as far as i’m concerned meat eaters are actively:

  • acting violence on an oppressed people
  • defending status quo power
  • financing ag industry
  • policing: incarcerating and enslaving
  • violating the autonomy of others en masse

and more.

i don’t have reasoned discussions with cops, racists, transphobes, or anyone else who acts in this way, but for 15 years i’ve tried to engage meat eaters in discourse rather than attack. and i can’t reconcile in my mind now why i’ve done that. why have i kept the kid gloves on for meat eaters for all these years? because of these nuances and exceptions to the rule that usually don’t apply in the bad faith discussions i end up in?

before they deleted their account the person who was in this thread left a comment reply to me saying “you win” after i attacked their stance. i don’t feel like i win anything in these conversations. i only feel like 70 billion enslaved, tortured and slaughtered animals each year lose.

i’ve lost interest in taking any stance other than constant and unwavering hostility against meat eaters. because i’m tired. i’ve heard it all before. i’ve discussed all the nuances and i’ve engaged all of the exceptions, and i’ve talked and talked and talked and nothing changes. i just see people go round in circles and it took me 15 years to realise that these nuances are being used as a weapon to try and shut down the conversation.

6

halfway_prince wrote

i hear you and appreciate you expressing that...i'll think more too about where i'm coming from as well

4

LittleHelp wrote

i would caution against jumping to extreme examples for the shock factor

This piece is ultimately what it boils down to to me. You either believe that animals are sentient beings with agency and immeasurable value comparable to or equal to that of humans, or you don't. If you do, then these examples will seem adequate. If you don't, these examples will seem extreme. There really is no compromise to be found here.

Ultimately, yes, I completely fully understand your point of view, but it's a point of view that for me always treats animal suffering as secondary compared to human inconvenience. I can see why and how a lot of people think this point of view in a society that overwhelmingly disagrees with the sentiment that animals have intrinsic worth is the only practicable one, but it's a compromise that is being made ultimately out of convenience, and that should imo be addressed and reflected as well.

And, practically speaking, yes, I have had some people question and adapt their diet because of me and because of the information I gave. But ultimately, meat consumption globally is on the rise, a sizeable amount of people I know who used to be vegan/vegetarian re-adopted meat consumption after a few years, and the overwhelming majority of the population just does not care and will never be convinced to go vegan by mere being talked to and compassion. I'd say that passivity, measured interaction, compassion and dialogue have ultimately failed to make any sizeable dent and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

Truthfully, I think it just needs both. There needs to be very clear, vast and loud communication and aggression denouncing meat-consumption, and there also should be readily available, comprehensive and tonally neutral/supportive resources to help people transition away from meat consumption. This is also why I think in-fighting is a bit pointless. When I see a thread like this one here, I'm just thinking, "well, I'm glad someone is doing the work". Because of course, it takes effort and mental resources to loudly and strongly condemn carnism in this world. It may likely decrease opportunity, meet you with hostility and often ridicule, cut you off from friends and community, and isolate you. In my mind, people sharing these takes need support, and not push back. I guess my question would be; why spend time policing the tone and speech of people who perceive the value of animal lives the highest, instead of spending that same time on criticizing people who think of it the lowest?

5

halfway_prince wrote

hm i feel you. Very interested in the meat consumption on the global rise - i must have missed that. Is it just a rate of increase proportionate to the growing population size? or is it that people are eating more meat? I was under the impression that people are eating less meat per person, but i could be woefully misinformed.

I think you're right and that analysis of soft/passive intervention coupled with a hard unforgiving line is important for a lot of movements to make change - i think the balance is what i'm interested in thinking through.

i guess i didn't intend my comments to come across as policing tone (even though i now see that's definitely a fair interpretation). I think tone isn't as important as the need for us to understand that to actually get people to transition to a vegan diet we need to overcome accessibiltiy barriers.

In other words, i'm cool with you yelling "all you fucking carnists need to stop your selfish athropocentric bullshit" as long as you're yelling it while offering them a bowl of dank vegan food or like handing out vegetables or cookbooks or in some other way making veganism more actively accessible to them.

Like i've literally had that situation with my room mate when they asked me "what are your opinions on me eating meat?" and i unapologetically ripped them for being selflish and lazy, but like the whole conversation was taking place over us cooking a vegan dinner together. The conversation has since stopped but we're still cooking a vegan meal several times a week together.

5

LittleHelp wrote

Very interested in the meat consumption on the global rise - i must have missed that. Is it just a rate of increase proportionate to the growing population size? or is it that people are eating more meat?

According to the data I saw, global meat consumption per capita is on the rise and has been for decades, not just the amount of meat produced. I think there is also a distinction to be made between meat consumption per capita and meat supply per capita; meaning that even if meat consumption per capita stays the same, it might still be profitable to produce more meat than actually necessary, so just looking at consumption alone instead of supply might give an incomplete picture bc of food ultimately thrown away (I'm not sure whether the data I saw acknowledges that or just looks at consumption alone).

A comprehensive set of data worth looking through can be found here. Be aware that the last revision was in 2019 and some data, like global per capita meat consumption, is only available until 2013. I can't find current statistics rn, but this suggests that until 2018, global meat consumption per capita has at least remained stable (very hard to compare between sources though bc it's a bit unlikely that they use the same methodology to arrive at their numbers).

Also, just looking at global consumption obviously has strong limitations. Some countries have sharp raises in meat consumption per capita lately, while some, especially industrial countries haven't seen much of an increase (but also not much of a decrease either).

Overall, from what I can see, it's messy, but it's clear that we are not seeing a strong trend away from meat consumption. If you are aware of more recent sources that contradict what I am saying, please let me know though c:

6

sagb wrote

healthy vegan diet

(partner, kids, parents)'s needs

Veganism is not about human health first.

being vegan just objectively requires more time cooking.

Veganism is not about cooking or not cooking.

meat is important to many cultures, celebrations, etc.

Antiveganism has no place to appropriate cultures.

necessary for me to make some ideological compromises

There is a difference between praxis, theory and ideology.

7

halfway_prince wrote

i like zoom-zip (whether or not they like me) so could muster the energy to respond there - really can't with whatever peta talking points you pulled from this.

however, i agree there's a difference between praxis theory and ideology and i would appreciate if you could explain how you think that statement is relevant here?

Ideology is (google definition) "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." How does veganism and for the example i used - a belief in rematriation of land to indigenous folks - not fall into that category? There is vegan theory that informs ideology, and subsequently both have influence on an individual's praxis. So like.............whatcha gettin at here? Veganism has it's toes in all three?

4

zoom_zip wrote

i like zoom-zip (whether or not they like me)

i like ya buddy

5

sagb wrote (edited )

ideology : a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy

"[..] an effective political praxis requires therefore the knowing of of reality (theory), a harmonising [with theory/knowing of reality] postulation of (moral) concepts of transformation (ideology) and concrete political means towards its execution (political action [praxis])" (free translation of a translation in ""Listen, radical geographer!": Soziale Kämpfe, Anarchismus und Geographie in Bewegung" (Bartholl 2021), original citation: FAU)

I just don't believe this to be a ideological compromise, but rather a theoretical compromise.

Anarchism is also not that accessible in civilisation, right now, but that doesn't mean that anarchists believe Anarchism is (unnecessarily) gatekeeping "radicalism", because anarchists' knowing of reality (including historical events) brings anarchists to postulate Anarchism as (necessary) ideology (that is as concept of transformation).

Antiveganism has either (a) a theoretical blankspace of carnism or (b) advocates for carnism, because antiveganism either (a) forms a knowing of reality that disregards (unnecessary) suffering of sentient beings as necessary or nonexistant in sentient (non-human) beings or (b) has no problem with suffering of sentient beings.

Now, antiveganism arguing that veganism be a colonial ideology is a colonial praxis, because impersonates and directs anticolonial and decolonial praxis as deterministically carnist, while veganism is certainly not a praxis of asking indigenous people to adopt veganism, especially when one integrates historical continuities of carnist-colonial ideology.

1

mindforgedmanacles wrote

Some actually get their meat through subsistence hunting and fishing, and don't prioritize zoocentrism over the wholesale suffering of all forms if life (including vegetal, which vegans usually disregard). Me and my boyfriend are privileged enough to live this way, and don't consume any meat that we didn't hunt for in the wild, mostly eating vegan otherwise.

2

albino_peach wrote

I feel like you trying to simplify praxis to one lifestyle choice just opens the way for gatekeeping. People try their best, they balance their choices into what can most fit into them. True anarchism would not lead to people being forced or pressured into veganism.

1

zoom_zip wrote

opens the way for gatekeeping

True anarchism

didn’t skip a beat

11

LittleHelp wrote

I feel like you trying to simplify praxis to one lifestyle choice just opens the way for gatekeeping.

I think the simplification happens when you call consuming the remains of sentient beings from industrialized mass slaughtering a "lifestyle choice". There is a bit of nuance between which style of hats you like best and whether or not you think animals should be raised and killed for your pleasure.

10

[deleted] wrote

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

I'm still not sure if I should have deleted my comment to this. I told them that if I was in an ideal Anarcho communist society I would hunt carnists for sport and if I would not it wouldn't be real anarchism. Little edgy and not into the whole theorizing but also fuck that would make the carnists mad.

6

sagb wrote

Where do all the woulds come from? What keeps you from ostracizing carnism in the Here&Now™?

3