LittleHelp

LittleHelp wrote

Reply to comment by Styx in The Problem with Hierarchy by ziq

A discussion can benefit from being able to associate the words of a person with their experiences and actions. A discussion may also benefit from making known who contributed to that discussion, for example in order to follow up on it or find more context.

I agree with your point that originality, intellectual rights, copyrights etc. are harmful concepts, but there's nuance between seeing value in associating individual authors with their words and codifying said authorship into laws to ensure industry profit

3

LittleHelp wrote

Must the disadvantaged continue to rely on the "tender mercies" of the majority in order to live their lives?

Yeah that's such a big issue imo

The idea that the majority would just suddenly be inherently empathetic to all disadvantaged minorities doesn't follow for me from an ideology that imposes some set of coercive rules to abide by to survive, even if most people agree on these rules. If the basic principle isn't "the right to self-determination of every being is inherently immeasurable, more important than any form of state or vote or opinion" then I have little confidence in that idea

Ofc it's a complex issue; I'm sure one may counter by saying that the new society is supposed to be just by design and thus disadvantaged minorities would no longer exist... to which I have little other to say than that it sure sounds very convenient

2

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

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

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.

9

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.

9

LittleHelp wrote

Vegans make mock meats all the time. From seitan sausage, bean burgers, ground seitan, scrambled tofu

What sparked this discussion is the picture above and that looks like it's industrially made. I'm not sure the description "disguised as something that it's not" which was initially used in the comment I replied to applies to most meat substitutes that are actually made by vegans at home. But I mean it probably depends on the person

That's the good part tho. Embrace gross and disturbing and revoke your stereotypical attachment to clean. Throw ur soap away

Still... Meat is processed and killed off animal's muscle tissue. I'm not sure I see the point in "throwing purity away" when it's about seeing autonomy in things that used to be alive. I don't share the need some people have to cosplay meat-eaters by consuming things that resemble meat as closely as possible. If you care about it, you can have disgusting meals that don't resemble meat at all. Why would it need to look like meat, of all things?

What I'm trying to say is: Overcoming your "stereotypes" to not find meat disgusting anymore is not what I would perceive as generally empowering or constructive. I think the notion that meat is something tasty or nice is a much more prevalent idea.

I do agree with dismantling the bias for purity and cleanliness in general, though.

2

LittleHelp wrote

It's not really "vegans" that create this food though is it? It's corporations trying to make money. From my experience the most important reasons for most people to continue to eat meat are "it tastes good" and that it's what they are used to. Thus, food made as similar as possible to meat provides an alternative to this reasoning. It would probably sell better than other vegan types of food based on that reason alone.

I personally follow a vegan diet and to me, food that looks or tastes or feels too much like real meat is a bit disgusting, even if it's vegan. I wouldn't refuse to eat it on those grounds though; and it's usually the easiest to process ingredient available.

6