Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

metocin wrote

What I did was make an argument that some vegans call people Nazis for eating meat

My point is that says nothing about vegans because shitty behaviour exists in every group of people. Why even bring it up? The problem isn't veganism itself, it's ignorant bigoted people who happen to be vegan. As a vegan it's extremely annoying to see people bring these things up as if its relevant to veganism in general. It's just acting in bad faith.

By the way I should add that if you are unable to eat completely vegan but still avoid animal products as much as possible and believe in the ethics, you can still call yourself a vegan, rather than saying youre an exvegan and unable to be vegan.

Unsure why I shouldn't just block you at this point tbh

There are very few people to converse with on this site already, and if a mild argument like this is enough to upset you then I'm not sure how you would comfortably use any social media.

I honestly don't mean any harm against anyone on this website who is discussing in good faith. However I get annoyed very easily at anti-vegan rhetoric because it is often just bad faith bs. If you agree with the basic premises of veganism/animal liberation then I'm sorry for starting an unnecessary argument.

2

tuesday wrote

Ok. I'm gonna give you some advice. That is my right as an Old(tm). You are 100% able to ignore everything I say because that's how we do. But first, a re-cap.

I never said anything other than that white vegans are a meme, a specific behavior, as a criticism of their lack of cultural awareness.

You replied with it being something "woke" leftists accuse vegans of. You said

Yeah sure. It's a valid criticism when it's coming from a vegan who is critical of other vegans. It becomes a strawman when nonvegans use it to attack veganism. Vegans aren't any more likely to be ignorant or bigoted than anyone else (white or not), in fact I would think they are less likely to be so. The thing is woke nonvegans get so riled up by the though of considering animal liberation that they need to find a way to paint vegans as non-intersectional/bigoted/not-woke.

I never said that vegans were more likely to be ignorant or bigoted than anyone else. You also said that this is something that "woke" non-vegans say to try to find a way to paint vegans as non-intersectional.

You built this whole defense against someone's ability to level a criticism that you said was valid, because you're mad at carnists.

Now the advice:

If it's not about you, it's not for you.

When you come across someone who is being critical of a group that you identify with and you're in a space where we're all supposed to be working toward vaguely similar goals rather than get defensive you should check yourself.

The first question is: Is this person making a good faith argument? Have they said anything deliberately untrue or twisted things in such a way as to make a bad faith argument?

If the answer is no, then disengage. They aren't coming from a place where you are being respected.

If the answer is yes, then you have to position yourself so that you trust that this person is coming from their experience. They are telling you the truth as they understand it (that doesn't mean it's right, just that this is what they understand given their particular circumstances). If your thought is "well, I've never seen that!" then you aren't taking them at their word that they're here in good faith. Because you haven't, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could very well mean that they're misinterpreting something and if that's the case you can ask good faith questions, but it's bad faith to accuse someone of not experiencing something.

The second question is: Coming from my position within this identity do I see this good faith criticism as valid?

If the answer is no then answer their criticism if you want to (your call), but not by telling them that "not all x" when "all x" was never the criticism. A good way to do this is to repeat their argument back to them in your own words if you can to make sure that you're talking about the same thing. And then explain why their interpretation isn't correct.

(side note: My original criticism was "x is when y does z." You came back at me with "y never does z." I can prove that it happens though. That's not cherry picking information. Cherry picking information is going through a body of work to specifically pull things out of context. That's not what I did at all. )

If the answer is yes, move on.

Number three: Do I participate in the perpetuation of the behaviour being criticised that I have agreed comes from a good place and is a valid criticism?

If the answer is no but you think it isn't that person's lane then say so. But don't defend it. That's weird. Why would you defend against criticism that you understand to be coming from an honest place, that explains something that you agree is a valid criticism?

If it's not about you, it's not for you.

But what if it is about you? What if you do do that thing? I guess that means you've got some work to do my friend.

2

metocin wrote

I don't really need to be talked down to. You don't even know hold young or old I may be and it's condescending to assume I am younger and need advice from you about how to have a discussion on the internet.

You do not identify as vegan, yet came into a post in the vegan forum to give a pretty useless and ignorant definition of that term and how it is often used.

You aren't vegan, in a post about veganism?

If it's not about you, it's not for you.

There are ignorant vegans of all identities. There are plenty of ignorant white non-vegans. A white vegan is a white vegan. A non-intersectional vegan is someone who ignores concerns unrelated to veganism. There are POC vegans that are uncritical of capitalism and labour conditions in the third world. The definition you gave is not accurate or helpful because "white vegans", as I said, is simply a strawman that is built up by non-vegans to make it appear as if veganism has an intersectionality problem when it reality it's problems with intersectionality are no different than that of any other movement or group of people.

You said you are an ex vegan, have not confirmed whether or not you believe in the ethics of veganism and animal liberation, and you come into a post to perpetuate a negative stereotype about vegans. Does that sound like a post made in good faith? Because it certainly does not read as such.

1

tuesday wrote

It's this and also...

^ that's you agreeing with me.

2

metocin wrote

Because there is some truth in it, just as it is true that there are racist and sexist anarchists. Is that truth statistically significant or representative of the movement as a whole?

2