Lafari

What has worked best in your experience when you just want to answer the question and survive the interaction without it turning into an all-out war (but you also don't want to lie about what your reasoning for being vegan is just to comfort the other person and fit in, as this feels to me wrong/harmful and disrespectful to the animal movement to mischaracterize what its purpose is)?

I am still trialing this, and haven't experimented with all these responses to the question, but here is what I am thinking may carry the least likelihood of triggering an argument or defensive, hostile, mocking comments etc. And then for fun (as well as clarification of the kinds of responses I am avoiding for this purpose), we can also talk about what responses which we know are going to provoke people. Please list what your go-to answers to this question are, it can help a lot.

Least likely to cause an argument:

"All the reasons." / "Many reasons".

"It just felt right for me."/"It felt like the right thing to do." (Not sure I'm too happy about this one as far as watering down the movement, and its non-specificity, but it's ok - I tried it before [1st version] and person just looked at me strangely and didn't say anything, convo moved on.)

"For the animals."

"For the 'Big 3' reasons: the animals, the planet, and my personal health."

Somewhat likely to cause an argument:

"I couldn't find a good enough justification not to be."

"Because I love/respect animals/animals are cool individuals."

"I learned about the cruelty involved in using animals for food, clothing, etc."

"Because I'm a pacifist."/"Because I'm against violence/I believe in peace, love, respect, ahimsa, etc."

"Because I find what humans are doing to other animals cruel and unnecessary."

"I'm not into the animal industry, it seems rather extreme."

"Because it's the future."

"Because animals are sentient beings."

"Because I believe animals deserve rights e.g. to self-preservation, freedom, autonomy, the pursuit of happiness, etc."

Most likely to cause an argument (these are examples of the kinds of responses that I'm especially wanting to avoid in certain situations and searching for less-inflammatory/provocative, less-blunt alternatives for):

"Why wouldn't I be?"/"It's a moral obligation."

"Because animals didn't consent."

"Non-human animals are non-human persons." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Non-human_animals )

"Non-human animals are someones, not somethings".

"Because animals are here with us, not for us."/"Because animals are ends in and of themselves, not means to our ends."/"Because the value of an animal is intrinsic, not extrinsic/instrumental"./"I realized we have no right to own and take advantage of another living (sentient) being for our own ends."

"I believe in justice and progress for all sentient beings and the liberation of marginalized groups of individuals."

"I'm ideologically opposed to the institution of systemic animal commodification/domination/objectification/exploitation."

"Because I'm against slavery/injustice/oppression/etc."

"For the same reason you're against eating dogs or humans, but extended consistently."/"For the same reason you're against dog-fighting."/"For the same reason I'm against racism".

"Because meat is murder and dairy is rape (Note: this refers to artificial insemination)".

"I don't like funding/contributing to/participating in holocausts/mass-murder/genocides/speciecides of other species."

"Because I'm not a savage."

"Because I'm not a speciesist".

"Why aren't you?"/"It's not about why I'm vegan. It's about why do you exploit & consume & use the lives and bodies of non-human animals?"

Joke answers (can be effective to soften the conversation and avoid talking about it seriously, but may belie the true intentions of veganism):

"I have a vendetta against plants and I'm on a mission to kill as many plants as possible... oh wait, I'm actually sparing more of them by being vegan than by supporting animal agriculture. That sucks."

"I asked an animal what their preference was and they told me they'd rather not be eaten or used for products."

"I'm avoiding being judged negatively by our descendants when we live in a vegan society."

"I'm part of the evil woke vegan agenda."

"I'm funded by Bill Gates."

Disclaimers:

I know many would say "There is only one reason to be vegan, because veganism is a justice stance about animals - it's not a diet and it's not about health, environment, or any other side-benefit of animal-free living." - Though I don't think it's necessarily a problem to acknowledge those other benefits in addition to focusing on animals. And yes, when I ask about how to answer the question of why one is vegan, I am referring to the definition of veganism that is an ethical philosophy for animals or animal rights, but there are actually a lot of different ways to answer this question truthfully, and you can come at it from many angles. For example, you don't need to list every reason, you can just state one, and it would still be true - as long as it's actually related to the animals from an ethical perspective (I don't want to promote misconceptions about what veganism is). And the particular way in which you describe it - including the exact wording you use - can certainly elicit different responses.

I am totally fine with people who are in social situations answering this question (Why they are vegan) in a way that WILL likely trigger an argument or resistance from the other person, if you're fine with doing that - and it can be a good opportunity for activism, advocacy, misinformation-correcting, etc.

Also, I understand that if stating the truth in a particular way causes an emotional response, defensiveness or counter-arguments, mean comments/mockery/ridicule/bullying, or makes the person become outraged/pearl-clutching and strawman you and accuse you of things you didn't actually say or mean, it's largely on them and isn't your fault. But as unreasonable as people can be, we have to work around them and coexist with them while living in society, and I still would like to be able to, in certain situations where I'm not in the mood for an argument/debate or tense/heated discussion (especially since I do care a lot about the topic), answer the question, which comes up a lot, in a peaceful and amicable manner that basically defuses/avoids the potential conflict and allows us to get on with the social interaction normally.

If it prompts further questioning or curiosity (even in an honest, good-faith manner), that still actually isn't the most ideal (unless I want to talk about it, or I think they're a reasonable person who will understand), since it can lead to opportunities for running into the same problems if the conversation continues and e.g. we reach a point of disagreement, but it doesn't necessarily have to and can in some cases be a rewarding dialogue or simply last for a few more lines and then segue into something else seamlessly.

I also know it's not possible to avoid upsetting/offending people 100% of the time, and some people will inevitably get triggered by your response to the question (whatever it is), or even from the get-go just from knowing you're vegan and taking the chance to express their opinions on the matter or their objection to veganism and justification for not being vegan, concern trolling, mean-spirited teasing, etc. But the goal of finding the "Golden Answer" to this question which I'm searching for, is to reduce the likelihood of negative responses as much as realistically possible, and yet without betraying my true values and beliefs about animals etc (and what veganism is about).

P.S. Since there isn't an AskAVegan server on Lemmy that I know of, and the vegan community here is pretty small and often gets non-vegans commenting in it, I'm just specifying I'd rather only vegans reply to this if that's okay.

Preface: I know veganism is a broad ethical/justice stance against any animal exploitation that extends beyond food, but food is the most common way that humans contribute to the exploitation of nonhuman animals by far, usually 3 times a day or more - and it's something that they love to talk about and do as well. We could include buying clothes to a degree, but fewer clothes people buy are made from animals, and that topic doesn't seem to come up as much.

Do you avoid talking about, looking at, or being around food when with non-vegans (which is most people, meaning really any situation unless you're exclusively with people you know are vegan) because the reminder of what they're causing to happen to animals right in front of you and that most people don't share your views/actions on animals is too upsetting (possibly especially when it's people you know)?

Also because it can turn into an argument that you don't want, either because you feel obligated to briefly comment on it/state your opinion/certain facts if the subject specifically goes in that direction of veganism/animal cruelty (or feel like you should, but stop yourself for fear of rejection/conflict, which is itself painful) and then people get defensive & argumentative, or because other people bring it up and force the conversation on you and ask you questions about it that you don't know how to lie about or feel you have to be honest about, and then that leads to them getting angry and criticizing your views etc?

How do you avoid these situations? For example, it might be easier to do in digital formats, e.g. on Discord if I am in a server that has a food channel, I completely avoid the food channel or don't even give myself the "role" that would allow myself to see it. (Does anyone else do this? Seeing murdered corpses & exploited secretions of animals being glorified on full display is too triggering, especially when it's next to an "animal lovers" channel that is actually just "pet" lovers - dogs and cats that those people would feel the same horror at humans eating as we feel about all animals. That speciesist double standard/hypocrisy is also very distressing & maddening to be reminded of.) If people start talking about food in a general chat in any online space unrelated to food (it happens a lot) I typically just leave. For social media, there is always a way to just exit the space, platform, situation or turn off the device.

But how do you avoid this in real life? When you're in a social situation with people, you don't really have the ability to just leave if they're talking about or eating food.

I know some people take the Liberation Pledge (refusing to eat anywhere that animals and/or animal products are being served, and organizing fully plant-based [or alternatively at least animal flesh free] tables to eat at always). Usually this is done as more of a justice stance against animal exploitation as an extension of veganism, or as part of activism. But if I was going to do something like that, it would probably be largely to protect myself from the emotional anguish and stressful (often tense) situations that come about from being around people eating animals/animal secretions. However I don't know if it's effective for normalizing or getting across the message of not using animals (not that that is the focus of my post), or if it's practical to avoid all those situations from a personal point of view - it could be more isolating than I already feel. I don't want to ostracize myself from other people by not associating with them while they're involving themselves in discussions or activities related to animal exploitation, but at the same time I feel very disturbed about this and I know I feel more comfortable around other vegans - or when non-vegans aren't talking about those subjects at all.

Do you (vegans) personally avoid situations where food is being talked about or consumed when around non-vegans, or how do you deal with this from a mental health perspective?

P.S. Since there isn't an AskAVegan server on Lemmy that I know of, and the vegan community here is pretty small and often gets non-vegans commenting in it, I'm just specifying I'd rather only vegans reply to this if that's okay.

Hi, just wondering if fuggs are vegan. As in, do they contain products made from animals?

As far as I can tell, "fuggs" is a portmanteau of "fake" and "uggs", and so fuggs are "fake" uggs, meaning fake ugg boots. Uggs or ugg boots are a kind of boots traditionally made from sheepskin/shearling, and sometimes with suede leather (cow skin) on the outside.

But there's a bit of confusion about what "fuggs" or "fake uggs" means. Unlike something such as "faux fur" or "faux/fake leather", where it's pretty clear that will be vegan and not made from animals like the traditional kind is, "ugg" has some weird brand authenticity thing going on.

I might get some facts wrong here, but from what I could gather, there are 2 companies, called "UGG" (American brand) and "UGG Since 1974" (Australian brand) which both lay some kind of claim to what can be considered an authentic ugg boot. Uggs were first made in Australia, but I think the American UGG brand often sues other companies, including those in Australia, for using the "ugg" name. However in some places ugg simply means the style of shoe rather than the brand.

So unfortunately due to this, I think there might be 2 different meanings of "fuggs" - one I believe indeed means vegan ugg boots which don't use animal skins/products, while the other meaning is simply an ugg boot made in the traditional way from animals but just not by the "official" UGG brand.

In all this confusion, how can we truly answer the question of "Are fuggs vegan?" Is the answer somewhere between "They could be, sometimes." or "No one knows, really." ?

All PS2 games look really blurry on Panasonic Viera TV.

For comparison, when I play the Jak trilogy on PS5 (which is just the PS2 ports), it has a sharp and crisp image. But the same games on an actual PS2 are much lower quality. This leads me to think there's some scaling issue that the PS5 automatically fixes since I don't think they remastered it or anything. And the same applies to every PS2 game.

It's currently connected via RCA component cables, and I tried messing with the game mode settings on the TV but it didn't really do anything noticeable. I'm wondering if I should buy a PS2 to HDMI converter or if that might be even worse than the current set up. I don't have much money I can spend but if I need to I will, just whatever it takes to get it looking good. It looks like sh*

If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.

Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):

At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.

The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."

Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal?

Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy.

"The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable.

The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less."

I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: "This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all." (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: "This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution." (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued.

What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable.

So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.