Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

I don't have any friends who arent vegans, ngl.

11

existential1 wrote

Most of my friends are omni. Some significantly more plant based than others. Most of my closest friends are vegan or vegetarian.

10

Kinshavo wrote

With carnists probably only acquaintance. But omnivores I can be very good friends, lovers would take much more to convince me.

8

yam wrote

Carnist and omnivore are the same thing. The flesh-only diet is usually referred to as carnivore diet.

5

Kinshavo wrote

I beg to differ, like you said flesh diet makes a carnivore, and omnivore is also categorizes a diet habit.

Carnism involves ideology like you pointed out with the wikipedia article. It is like being vegan and eating vegan, if only your diet is vegan it doesn't make you vegan.

Here, take my badge... I resign from the Vegan Police

5

yam wrote (edited )

Carnism involves ideology

According to Melanie Joy, who popularized the term, carnism is an invisible ideology, much like racism. You can be racist even if you don't self-identify as racist (I hope we can agree on this). If you enact racism, you're a racist; if you enact carnism, well, you're a carnist.

7

Kinshavo wrote

I totally agree, and the remark about being invisible is totally spot on. I tried to make this argument, but I feel the need to not dismiss the omnivore category as referring to an eating habit that could be attached to carnist ideology or not.

You can find people who are omnivores themselves but they genuinely don't engage in carnism or are totally alienated from the debate even if they are uncouciusly permeated by carnism

5

yam wrote

You can find people who are omnivores themselves but they genuinely don't engage in carnism

I'm confused. Would that be someone who see themselves as omnivore, "eating anything", yet just so happens to not eat others or their bodily secretes, i.e. accidentally vegan?

7

Kinshavo wrote

it's confusing because it is not a binary matter of yes or no.

I agree that Carnism as an ideology is the norm for our relationship with animals, and there is another concept called omnivorism that is independent and describes an eating habit.

Can an omnivore be accidentally vegan? No by definition.

Can an omnivore not be a carnist? Well, that's the whole point.

I wish to avoid the racism comparison because this metaphoric argument will bring no good. What I meant is that you find people that don't refrain from animal products but yet they don't engage actively on this 4 Ns stuff and can even be sympathetic to diminish the consumption of animal products, because not everyone is born a vegan.

I see that this argument I am doing is weak and depends on the different perceptions we both have on the label itself and how deep Carnist ideology is intertwined in our society.

As we said, Carnist ideology permeates societies at various levels, so it is a constant effort and that's why we will find so many people alienated by the western white liberal version of veganism that equates consumerism as activism.

3

moonlune wrote (edited )

Many of my friends are omni, veg(eteri)ans are few and far between in the places I usually make friends in.

I can't see myself in a relationship with anything less than a vegetarian. First I don't want to fill my fridge with corpses but also I feel like we'd have too different values.

Maybe cupid will do his work and make me fall for an omni, but they'd probably have to change if we want a long term relationship to work out.

8

86944 wrote

I'm not vegan. I'm a strict vegetarian and avoid animal products whenever feasible but I digress.

I don't have a problem with being friends with meat eaters, so long as they're not obnoxious about my diet. I know very few vegetarians/vegans irl and many of them do so only for religious reasons. As for dating? Vegetarian or willing not to eat meat at home at the least. Dating pool is small enough around here as it is.

8

Hibiscus_Syrup wrote

I can be very close with people, but it's not always easy when I am.

That said, I'm generally even more critical of vegans who don't get their other basic politics right. I don't even want to be in the same room with those people.

7

metocin wrote (edited )

honestly its hard to decide whats more hypocritical between an 'apolitical' vegan or a non-vegan anarchist

edit: fake anarchists mad

−1

black_fox wrote

with omnivores it doesn’t matter —any of the things you listed. it’s more of practicality and the question of can we share a meal.

if you’re talking carnists i’ve met one i think, a long time ago. i don’t know anyone who believes all the 4 Ns or what this Wikipedia page is telling me.

6

ruin wrote

Just looked up carnists and I don’t think I’ve met many myself. The frequency it pops up here I assumed it was just pejorative slang for meat eaters of all varieties.

Central to the ideology is the acceptance of meat-eating as "natural", "normal", "necessary", and (sometimes) "nice", known as the "Four Ns".[n 2] An important feature of carnism is the classification of only particular species of animal as food, and the acceptance of practices toward those animals that would be rejected as unacceptable cruelty if applied to other species.

8

silvermetimbers wrote

Just looked up carnists and I don’t think I’ve met many myself

Carnism is the default ideology that stands in opposition to veganism. Most everyone you've ever met believes in carnism.

6

[deleted] wrote

4

ruin wrote

I think I’ll stick with this. Given that the Wikipedia bar is set a bit high with the 4 N’s and the specific speciesist stuff, it’s not surprising few, if any people would self identify.

7

silvermetimbers wrote

The person who coined the term doesn't really believe in identifying people as "carnist", carnism as a concept was more her attempt to document what belief system society at large holds such that "good people" (including most vegans at some point their life), are so resistant to change.

3

ruin wrote

Thanks.

I gathered the intention of the term as originally coined, but given the usage in the title of the post, and elsewhere in the forums, it’s clearly not uncommon as a label for individuals as well.

I’m filing it with fascist, reactionary, neoliberal, etc. Margarine words that can be used precisely but are typically employed as loosely defined pejorative aesthetic labels.

3

unneeded_junes wrote

I’m ideologically aligned with veganism, but have yet to adopt it. I don’t think that I’d reject anyone because of what they eat unless for some weird reason they purposefully use animal products because they enjoy suffering. You know those people who tout “I’ll be sure to eat twice as much meat so no single vegan can make a change!”

To think anyone would reject people who knowingly use animal products is sort of disturbing to me. Ethical consumerism is not effective nor can everyone do it. Money, health, availability, etc are all factors.

3