this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2025
37 points (89.4% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2565 readers
123 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I notice this with people talking about capitalism, obviously, but honestly what drove me to make this post is the attempted arguments against veganism. They're basically 95% unoriginal and fail under the most basic of scrutiny.

Take, for example, "not eating the meat won't bring the cow back." Under basically any logical scrutiny, this is a clear double standard to any other purchasing decision in capitalist society, and doesn't really make any sense. But I've seen in so many times over the years, so much so that im planning on becoming a vegan over a period of time. Not because of any arguments vegans make, but because somehow pro-meat eaters are losing a debate to a brick wall, and the conclusions I've made myself have convinced myself that I should be vegan. And I'm really starting to ask, do people just...like...ctrl+c ctrl+v arguments in their head?

I...try to be nice. But...how little respect to your own ability do you have if you do that? Not only to justify something you really don't have to, but something you obviously dont care about. I mean...sorry, it's just baffling to me.

In the words of Kim Kitsuragi from disco elysium, "I dont understand officer...please, help me understand"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Before I start, I will just say I am not opposed to being vegetarian or vegan, but am speaking to larger arguments about capitalism and how things are laid out. I think it's good to be vegetarian or vegan if you can.

Take, for example, “not eating the meat won’t bring the cow back.” Under basically any logical scrutiny, this is a clear double standard to any other purchasing decision in capitalist society, and doesn’t really make any sense.

I don't understand what is wrong with this argument as compared to other purchasing decisions in capitalist society. You can choose the boycott route, yes, and if enough people do, it might make an impact, but you aren't going to change the whole system by not consuming a particular product, or not buying from a particular retailer or the like. In particular, individualist choices that have no organization behind them mean little other than massaging one's personal conscience (it's like the "vote with your wallet" stuff that comes from rightist libertarian argumentation). Organized boycotts are more where you'll see real impact, though obviously better is actual regulation and systemic change.

That said, I think it's commendable to try to live ethically, even when it's treading water in an unethical system, but I also think it's understandable when some people struggle to do so in every way, against the inertia of the system and within the options they have available to them.

As an example of how annoying it can be (and this isn't even ethics, it's just health), I try to live gluten-free cause while I'm not celiac, I do have some digestive issues with gluten. But it limits what I can eat quite a lot, unless I can include stuff that is substitute. And if it's a substitute, it's almost certainly going to cost more because it's normally a glutinous food. Now add onto this a prospect like trying to eat vegetarian or vegan. That can run into the same kind of issues. We could say like "get over it and figure out how to do it anyway" but that starts to get into idealistic striving, where it's all about overcoming as an individual.

There are limits to this kind of perspective on things, but in general, I would say there's a significant difference between someone who is directly performing/instigating an unethical act (ex: landlords) and someone who is distantly reaping the benefits of it, who never asked for it to happen, and who has no control over whether it happens in the first place. If we count the 2nd one as inexcusable, then probably most people in the world should be considered horrible people for what they consume that has, at one stage of production and distribution or another, some links to imperialist and/or capitalist exploitation.

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The argument doesn't make sense because it treats the situation like it's in a vacuum: there's a dead cow, might as well eat it.

This ignores reality. That cow was slaughtered to meet the demand for meat. By choosing to purchase meat you are responsible for that demand and so farmers will continue breeding cows for slaughter.

Less people buying meat = less cows being bred and slaughtered.

[–] SigmaStalin@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My problem with this thinking is enough people need to be vegan in a given community for the killing of animals to be reduced. Until enough people become vegan the killed animals would go in the trash. (For example) I believe coffee harvesting is unethical but I still consume coffee because I know my boycott efforts wont even be noticed by the bourgeois let alone lead to less slavery. What I know will make a difference is a socialist revolution which will hopefully eventually put an end to slavery. As long as there is capitalism the meat industry will live on and so will the supposed meat eater propaganda.

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"I'm just one person so I won't make difference" - 1 billion people who could be making a difference.

[–] SigmaStalin@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Also I already said that without an organised boycotting effort no change can be done. Veganism is not very organised. For example in my small (very conservative) city if I were to go vegan I'd be the only one. The suppliers would not notice me not eating a dozen eggs and a few kilos of chicken/meat every month.

[–] NotMushroomForDebate@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Organising, creating strategic campaigns, and creating communities is a crucial part of the vegan movement. What makes you believe that veganism and the animal rights movement is not organised?

There are many international activism organisations doing coordinated work. This ranges from on-street activism, education about health, sustainability and cooking, lobbying, organising protests (including protests against fur-farming which successfully outlawed it in multiple countries), various forms of agitation, working to improve accessibility of affordable vegan products, providing funding for new groups, and working intersectionally with feminist, queer, environmentalist groups, etc.

Here are some examples of bigger organisations/groups:
Veganuary: International campaign based around a 1-month 'challenge'. (25 million people took part in 2024, 27% of which stayed vegan afterwards, most others at least cut down by half).
We The Free: International activism organisation that has over 180 chapters in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania.
Vegan Hacktivists: Volunteer group of professional developers, designers, etc. working with and helping many animal rights and vegan organisations for free.
Animal Rights Map: Map that shows the location of animal rights groups around the world.
ProVeg International: Organisation mainly focused on industry, business, lobbying, vegan products, etc., but they also provide grants and funding for activist organisations and even small local groups.

There are also many activists who give talks in schools and universities, and more recently there has been an explosive surge in university campaigns that aim (and many have already succeeded) in making university cafeteria's plant-based, and other groups working on anti animal testing campaigns.
Plant-Based Universities: Extremely well-organised, very successful, focused on systemic change in the food system.
Allied Scholars for Animal Protection: More focused on education, agitation, research, and community. Mostly US-based, also supports campaigns in India.

Of course, like any sort of progressive movement, it's not likely that you'd find many existing groups in a "small very conservative" city. This does not mean that we should not try to organise and build up a community in these places. I was personally surprised to meet two people who have started successful activism groups and vegan communities in two quite rural, small, and very conservative towns.
Most vegans are very aware of the importance of community because it could feel quite isolating being the only vegan in your family or friend group. This is why almost every organisation/local group/chapter regularly hosts social events and tries to build up a welcoming and safe community for its members.

Also similar to other progressive movements, most of what you will come across will be in the global north, but that doesn't mean that the movement doesn't exist or is entirely irrelevant in the global south.
For example: there is an especially growing vegan movement in India, and recently China has started to have an organised movement as well. Many western organisations, such as some of the ones I linked above, also have active campaigns and independent local groups in the global south.
Middle East Vegan Society: Vegan advocacy, education, lobbying, certification in the Middle East and North Africa.
China Vegan Society: Vegan advocacy in China, yearly summit, community events, and provides two forms vegan labelling and certification to suit the conditions in China.

You can criticise many aspects of these organisations, campaigns, etc. because most of them are of course led by libs and anarchists, but that's not ground to dismiss the movement as a whole or veganism in and of itself. A lot of groups have marxist members and you'll probably find some small local ones run by MLs. There aren't many explicitly marxist vegan orgs, but I did find one in Germany and Switzerland. Here's the English "about us" page: https://mutb.org/international/about-us

I'll leave it at that for now because this comment is getting too long, but please feel free to ask about anything and I'll be happy to elaborate.

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also I already said that without an organised boycotting effort no change can be done.

Going vegan is a boycott lmao

If I were to go vegan I'd be the only one.

Same argument as before "I'm one person I can't make a difference" - 1 billion people not making a difference.

[–] SigmaStalin@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah the fact that its a boycot is the problem. Its liberal individualist thinking.

Same argument as before "I'm one person I can't make a difference" - 1 billion people not making a difference Oh god i thought this site was lib free but here we are. No i am not voting with my pocket. Yes i will not even be noticed it i were to boycot nor will the 60-70 muslim grammas ever change their mind even if the best vegan debatebro talked at them for hours

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Also I already said that without an organised boycotting effort no change can be done.

Yeah the fact that its a boycot is the problem. Its liberal individualist thinking.

[–] SigmaStalin@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah try getting 1 billion people to go vegan. The argument you are making is literally a libertarian "vote with your money" type of wrong.

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Your argument is literally "1 billion people won't go vegan overnight, so why should I?"

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is effectively the rightist libertarian "vote with your wallet" argument though. It is based on the belief that market forces are moved entirely by the magic of supply and demand, and so the idea is that issues in society will simply be fixed by people changing what it is they demand in the market.

The reality does not operate like this. In practice, one of the most common capitalist practices is to invent a problem and then try to sell people the solution. With that practice, it doesn't matter whether you wanted the product because the point is they're going to try to find a way to change reality so that you want and/or need the product they want to sell; either change your beliefs about the world so that you'll buy, or change your actual material realities so that you are more dependent on it. An example of this in practice is cars in the US. Surely a lot of people would love high speed trains across the country, like China has. But they don't get the option. The car industry and the fossil fuel industry ensures that they don't have that choice. Robust public transit would easily outcompete the horrible experience that is gridlock traffic and preventable accidents. And as long as the alternative is not an option, people can't just go, "Fuck cars, I'm going to take the train." In some areas, there just isn't an alternative. What little public transit there is, is not feasible without an obscenely long trip, if it's feasible at all. Alternatives like bikes are not feasible if the distance is too geographically big. If everyone in the US stopped using cars tomorrow, the industry would not stop producing cars. What would happen is society would shut down because a huge amount of it is dependent on cars.

At a glance, this sort of thing can sound like moral excuses, but it is how capitalism works. It forces you to have culpability in one perspective and look like excuses in another. No one is getting out of it with a clean conscience if you want to moralize about it badly enough. But moralizing about it on an individual level has yet to fix the problems and there is no reason to think it will start doing it. I am not exactly an expert on dialectics, but I feel pretty confident in saying that while moral shaming can at times play a part in the component of dialectics where we influence the world, you won't change the world on that alone. You have to take into account what people's material realities are and address them.

I think a much more useful thing to do in the face of someone saying, "not eating the meat won’t bring the cow back" is to ask what it is about not eating meat that gives them pause. Do they just really like the taste? Is it hard to change their diet? Are there traditional foods they eat and a sense of culture tied up in it? Rather than focusing purely on the argument as sound or unsound. And perhaps more importantly, what is it going to accomplish getting them to go vegan? Just harm reduction for the time being? What is the broader strategy toward dismantling factory farming as a practice?

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People do have that option though. It's not cars vs non-existent rail transport. It's meat vs beans.

If everyone stopped eating meat, cows wouldn't be farmed for meat.

The fact that now supermarkets have entire vegan sections or vegan variants of non-vegan products is proof of a deman for vegan products. People that could be spending money of meat, are spending on vegan alternatives instead.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So you're just going to ignore the part about the importance of political power and organizing, huh. Fascinating.

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So my takeaway is you don't care about ending factory farming, you just want to argue about abstractions.

[–] Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This might be the most childish behavior I've seen on this instance. I hope no one sees this thread and thinks it is the normal here, cause it's not.

[–] FuckBigTech347@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Every thread here about veganism ends up like this.
Ironically, browsing lemmygrad for a few years has given me a negative bias towards vegans and veganism in general.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 14 hours ago

I can see why if you've encountered this with any regularity. It seems to me that it is a poor representation of those views. In contrast, every time I've met someone in RL who is vegetarian or vegan, they are pretty low key about it and basically just bring it up if there are situations where dietary restrictions need to be considered. Not that I think people should be going to the point of not even saying it if they believe strongly about it, but like, "pick your battles" kind of thing, I guess is what I'm getting at? Unless they're someone who is just really skillful at chatting ideology calmly with another person like they're talking about the weather, then they may be able to broach those subjects with anyone and everyone they meet without it feeling like someone is on trial. I'm not like that though, certain subjects and points of view will make it hard for me to stay calm, so I tread lightly with who all and when all I even get into some subjects. Cause if I lose my cool, not only might I harm a relationship that could otherwise be worked on, it makes it hard to think persuasively as well. And people generally don't want to listen to someone who is going off on them.