Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

1

notcreativename wrote

We do disagree there. I am admittedly biased in favour of humans. I support the continued production of insulin and anti-venoms, as well as any other life saving medication that is dependent on the suffering of animals. I realize that puts us at odds in the margins of agricultural reform, with the majority still being largely agreed upon.

We are also going to have to disagree regarding Moonlune's comment, and their intentions. I do not read that comment as parodying a racist caricature to make a point, especially when their argument is relying on their being truth to it. And while I'm having an issue ordering the comments here and their authors, the further plumbing of that topic has had the same colonial racism come up. Where Inuit people are undeveloped savages living in fringes, and not a robust and developed culture living in the modern age (granted, with a large portion North of the tree line).

Was I acting like a cop? Did I agree with a shift to plant based nutrition, with the condition of respecting and accommodating specific vulnerable cultures? From this side, it would be effortless to assume that you've just been asked to consider a group that you're obviously quite ignorant of, and you responded with the knee-jerk defense that you are entitled to obliterate those people and that any defense of them must be in poor faith. Emotions run high, but getting defensive like that, and then not being accountable for it is a recipe for blindness. Especially when you find yourself defending what is naked racism.

Also, as I type that, I realize that this could have such a greater emotional weight to someone that might equate free range ranching with reservations. In that case, yeah, the racist treatment of that vulnerable group of people pales in comparison to the crimes committed against animals. And I am not primed to consider those crimes against animals as being similar to crimes against people. So I'm focused in on the racist viewpoint, whereas to someone else that could seem like a wholly unnecessary tangent.

There's a difference between policing people's behaviour, and coaching blind spots. And I think it comes down to intention, reception, and context. Telling someone that is generally advocating for vulnerable groups that they are marginalizing a culture or species in a polite and respectful way, with the hope of having them incorporate that into a more encompassing perspective is good, especially when received well. I get that it's frustrating sometimes, and, that it's used as a weapon to immobilize, but its also the defining action that allows for a continual improvement of ideology and method. I'm not trying to stop you from advocating your cause, I'm shoulder to shoulder with you on 99% of it, and want it to move forward. But, it is an ever-present fear that any group I support is going to start turning people into "others." I am scared of the Bolsheviks, in short.

Also, am I white now? Last I checked I was getting the brackets, but that shit changes with the wind. And does my argument lose steam when I'm advocating for a group that I am not a part of? Am I only allowed to advocate for people born into Jewish families that lose their faith but are still forever Jewish in the eyes of the religious right?

1