this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
226 points (99.1% liked)
chapotraphouse
13473 readers
1 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If only they had more @Civility@hexbear.net they'd stop getting raged at for daring to exist in a visible way on the internet.
Let's set aside the people that were going to rage at you for daring to exist, because they're not really who matter and you're not going to change their minds.
I mean yeah, maybe the bit account @Civility@hexbear.net does have some kernel of truth where being civil builds solidarity and wins people over and gets people to change instead of just screaming at them and then getting ignored.
looks at a clock. The numbers 1-12 are replaced with the words "STRUGGLE SESSION"
Good heavens, just look at the time
Even bringing up the tendency for struggle sessions summoned someone very concerned about uncivil veganism.
It really is incredible how they always out themselves as liberals as soon as this particular topic comes up. Suddenly they're all about civility and appealing to the masses and anti-"extremism"
"The joke account made to mock the liberal pretenses of civility actually has a kernel of truth to it because vegans need to sit quietly and wait to be addressed by the dae le epic bacon treat consumers."
🥰
you brought up veganism in your original post you goofus jfc lol
Yes, because the discussion was liberals reacting to others "being good" in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and enrages them. "You goofus jfc lol."
EDIT: Also, according to you, apparently bringing up veganism in the first place is the "goofus" thing to do. That isn't quite the own you apparently think it is.
I may regret asking this, but what
CW: Struggle session, Rape, Holocaust,
spoiler
This is obviously contentious, but common Vegan arguments appeal to current treatment of animals as tantamount to the aforementioned things. The mass murder of animals, they say, is equivalent or worse than the holocaust given the sheer quantity and industrialized brutality of factory farming. They say that exploiting animals for labor or production is the equivalent of chattel slavery of people. They say that production of milk/cheese or other dairy products and the reproduction of animals for consumption in general depends upon forced fertilization, and is thus equivalent of rape.All of these arguments depend on believing animals are or at least should be treated as equivalent in moral standing to human beings. This is not a universal position, and one that can be incredibly offensive to people who are victims themselves or descended from victims of the aforementioned crimes. Jews don't like having their systematic extermination likened to the killing of animals because comparing us to animals to begin with was one of the justifications for our mass murder. Rape victims frequently feel that part of what makes their experience so uniquely awful is the disregard for their humanity and the complete objectification of their body for which they are synonymous with. Slavery is much the same, though with some importantly different factors that are beyond the conversation at hand.
Again, Vegans genuinely believe in good faith that animals ontologically have, or at least legally deserve, personhood. They don't make these comparisons maliciously, but I think they are missing their audience because they're not engaging at the level where disagreement actually occurs (whether both or either party is aware of it or not). People take offense to the arguments because they come off as minimalization of crimes against humans, they do not evoke the same level of outrage or sympathy as occurs in the mind of vegans. It's sad to watch unfold tbh.
For what it's worth, I do not think all animals deserve personhood. It may be circumstantially the right thing to do to be vegan given the myriad of factors (mass murder/torture of sentient creatures, persons or not; environmental cost; human toll on workers in the industry) but I do not share vegans ontological commitment to personhood for animals. This makes me more offended and less convinced by the above arguments, but I hope I've at least presented them charitably.
None of what you just said really applied to the reply chain here. According to one user here, in this reply chain, just bringing up vegans when discussing what sets off liberals who want to feel like they have a moral monopoly is against @Civility@hexbear.net which implies the only civil way to talk about vegans is to not talk about them.
😤
I am deeply disappointed to report that hexbear is not free from liberalism.
😌
Who decides where the line of civility is and who prevents that line from mysteriously drifting toward favoring the status quo and its default positions?
That line I just mentioned being arbitrarily drawn? It's already being drawn, by you, here.
🥰
😤