538
Whats your such opinion
(discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
538 points (87.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43831 readers
738 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
*Some vegans
I've never seen a vegetarian bully someone for not being purist enough. Vegans however do it constantly and even harass vegetarians
perhaps
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it's not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it's more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
it's due to cognitive dissonance.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It's always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
I appreciate that you are willing to engage on the topic respectfully. And you ask good questions.
I have spent some time pondering the choice of veganism vs meat eating vs vegetarianism in the past.
I agree it is important to examine one's emotional reactions. That is how, ultimately, I left behind religion. And that experience is what colors my view and provides the answer to my reaction.
To wit, one of the (many) things that I chafed against was people dictating to me what my morality must be as if they are the final arbiters of absolute morality. It is one thing to disagree, to share your own morality, to state your beliefs. To state what the other person must believe, that is what I find annoying.
It's an interesting topic because one then has to ask, what is the difference between this and me arguing with a bigot? I believe very strongly that people are all on equal footing and of equal regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender identity / expression, etc.
So how do I engage with racists...and why? E.g., Is it to change their minds? I mean that would be nice. But really it is to make certain their viewpoint never goes unchallenged.
And if I am morally reprehensible to a vegan, does that give them the right to challenge me? Yes. Does it give them the right to tell me what my morality must be? Hmm. If yes then I have the right to tell bigots what their morality must be too and I haven't grounds for complaint if someone does this to me. If no, then I may need to engage differently with bigots.
Now I could argue "but I am right about bigotry" and "being omnivorous isn't actually wrong" ... But that's from my perspective. I'm trying to step out of my belief system to look at this.
It isn't the scientific facts that are an issue; I am aware of them and don't dispute them. I have no qualms about reducing or eliminating most of the meat industry based on its environmental impacts. And I do wish to reduce my meat consumption on those grounds, not on moral grounds.
I've got an... overly simplified answer:
To a bigot, your challenges are annoying so they would avoid talking with you. So if you do want to engage with them, constantly (and aggressively) challenging their bigotry will prevent that. But why would you want to interact with bigots unless you absolutely had to? Their bigotry chafes you as much or more than your challenges chafe them. But also, if you live in some backwater place, and constantly seeking out and challenging bigotry means everybody around you wants nothing to do with you, then you're going to have a rough time.
In the same way, a vegan person challenging your dietary choices chafes you, and they may feel (and you may understand) that they have every reason to make the challenge, but it still is likely to prevent you wanting to engage with them. If most people around them are not vegan, and they seek out opportunities to challenge people, they're going to have a bad time.
But I also think there is a big difference between being in the minority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. vegans in meat-eating society) and being the majority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. religious area and self-righteous pricks starting conversations by asking if you are worried about going to hell).
For me it is the wholesale - "Everyone can do this, it is a moral failing on your part that you aren't already vegan" that irks me.
I have a combination of diseases that mean I could never go vegan, but every single time I have interacted with a vegan online they take the stance that I am lying/wrong and just justifying my choices. Well - My choice is to not die of malnutrition while being tied to a toilet 24/7.
Like yes, random internet vegan - You certainly know my dietary needs better than my doctor and I do...
It's about decreasing demand not decreasing waste. The purpose of flexitarianism is to reduce the demand for animal byproducts. Food waste is a much bigger issue at chain restaurants, especially fast food as it's often thrown out at the end of the shift as spoilage.
By not eating food that has already been bought and prepared you do not decrease demand.
Food waste in American homes is miniscule compared to the food waste in chain restaurants and fast food. You eating or not eating that steak is a mouse fart in a hurricane. There aren't enough mice to turn this train around. Food waste needs to be tackled in a very different way than demand. A vegan restaurant is just as likely to waste food as an omnivore restaurant is.
https://www.businessinsider.com/solving-food-waste-in-americas-restaurants-2016-5