this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
512 points (96.0% liked)
Vegan
332 readers
5 users here now
The vegan place to discuss things.
Resources:
Rules:
-
Keep discussions civil.
-
Arguments against veganism will be removed.
-
No bigotry is allowed - including speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Sealioning will not be entertained.
-
No promoting of plant based capitalism
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
According to your logic that if there's an -ist word then there must be a religion, it would seem that dentists follow the religion dentism. Chemists follow the religion chemism, and arsonists follow the religion arsonism.
On the other hand, perhaps a somethingist is just a person who does something. In which case, a carnist is anyone who does meat.
"Normal" people are always complaining when there's a word to describe them. Remember all that drama about cisgender being a slur? It's literally just the most logical word for the purpose. When there's a word to describe the normalised group, people inside that group go apeshit. It's a fundamental human bias. I once lost an entire friend group because one of the people in it couldn't stand that I used the word alloromantic.
If you don't like the word carnist, suggest another word that's equally clear and equally convenient.
Personally, I take a bit of offense to you drawing equivalence between the distinction of vegans and non-vegans and autistic and allistic people, asexuals vs allosexual people, or trans and cis people. The latter three here being immutable facts of somebody’s being and lived experience, whereas veganism is merely an ideology- no matter how laudable that ideology is, the fact is that it is a freely chosen aspect of their personality or beliefs.
For that reason, southsamurai’s point still has merit that you haven’t addressed, that “carnist” is an attempt to form division and delineation needlessly. Those other examples you gave of descriptors ‘normal’ people take offence to (shame on them) are scientific terms. Carnist is a pure ideological term, and it gives serious hexbear “fucking libs” energy.
If you claim your goal is to get more people into veganism, I would agree it is counterproductive - because non-vegans can become vegans, there’s no need for that othering language. Other descriptors for ‘normal’ people you list are purely descriptors and have utility for that reason, a cis person cannot be made into a trans person, a heterosexual cannot be made into a homosexual person.
I became a vegan because vegancirclejerk made fun of carnists. I'm going to stick with what empirically works. You can save your philosophical rambling for metaphysics, this is an empirically solvable issue.
Also you haven't suggested a better word yet.
Of course I have, I have been using it the whole time, non-vegan, it is perfectly descriptive and already used.
I heavily curtailed my meat consumption to the point of eating it a few times a year or so, sure not a gold star vegan, but I and no doubt, others are turned off from being lumped into the same group as steak-every-day ‘red blooded’ self-described ‘carnivores’.
Thanks for sharing how you were persuaded to become vegan, I stopped eating meat following learning of the sheer inefficiency and waste of the meat rearing process, but if you’re saying you respond to ridicule, then more power to you. You should know though, that most people don’t find those methods persuasive.
Bloodmouths are so easy to troll.
Not a vegan here, but everything MindTraveller said has made perfect sense to me.
i wanna know too & i'm not even vegan. like, what you said here is what i was saying to myself when i read you weird "carnist is a bad look" rant.
The sexual politics of meat strikes again