579
I don't know how to feel but I know I'm laughing
(startrek.website)
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 17 Oct 2023
579 points (89.8% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
4866 readers
1902 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I never really understand why people find it so entertaining to make fun of vegetarians and vegans.
Their choice results in less suffering, plain and simple. Maybe you aren't willing to change your diet, that's your decision. But if others are willing to put effort into changing their diets and become vegetarian because it's in line with their values, that's admirable and should be applauded.
Please don't make fun of people who put time and energy into pursuing their values. Not if you don't see yourself as a bully.
I can go into detail on this, actually. It centers around personal insecurity, and a lack of empathy. Let me explain:
Keep in mind I used to eat meat. I've been a vegetarian for well over 10 years now.
So often they joke or sometimes project with, "how do you know someone's a vegetarian/vegan? They'll tell you."
Now I get this can just be a joke, but oftentimes it comes off more passive-aggressive, reeking of insecurity. So entertain some possible reasons why vegetarians / vegans "tell you":
Whose experience has been that bad with vegetarians/vegans, truly? Apart from what's perpetuated and inflated in media and pop-culture. I'm literally surrounded by 97% of meat-eaters. How do I know they're meat-eaters? I can guess because... 97% are meat-eaters. And that's fine. But my sample of meat-eaters mocking what I choose to eat is far larger than the reverse. 3% means you aren't bumping into too many of us. Speaking for myself, most of the moral arguments are fanned by those wondering why I chose to be one and cornered me into revealing I am a vegetarian (usually because the office or my group of friends is getting lunch or something, or I'm offered something I cannot have). Every single time I kindly explain my reasons and make an effort to note, "I don't care what anyone else does, I just want to do my thing and lead by my own example." Yet understand: it was THEY who asked ME. Food and eating with people is just an event that happens frequently. As a result it's bound to happen that someone orders you something you can't eat or attempts to and you explain to them why you cannot. They ask what you brought for lunch and the moment tofu crosses your mouth, cue the questions. Apparently they resent this and store this as ammunition later, and then remember it being you getting on a soapbox telling them what an awful person they are. (That's probably their inner-conscience talking).
So — duh — it's because you asked.
I assure you, speaking as a former meat-eater who was a meat-eater longer than a vegetarian, we receive A LOT more shit than we dish out. Most of us just want to do our thing and not even tell you. I don't particularly like the attention when it's pointed out — as is the case with most of my peers. I don't mind questions, I just want mutual respect for my choices. Thus considering the sheer ratio of encounters between omnivores/carnivores vs. Plant-based diets, combined with the fact that most vegetarians/vegans have at one point been on the other side while the reverse isn't true, I'd say people me know better the perspectives of both positions.
The problem is that diet becomes deeply personal and political for people. When they see someone else do something they don't feel they can do themselves, then they either (a) try to elevate themselves above that person (case-in-point with @straypet below), or (b) try to bring the other person down. This has everything to do with ego and self-esteem.
If they mock and put down the ones making better choices, they won't feel as bad about themselves for their own poorer choices.
I eat meat and for a while now I've said vegans are simply right.
There's a logical inconsistency with valuing the lives of pets, or being an "animal lover" who still eats meat. People don't want to be confronted with their cognitive dissonance, so they make fun of people brave enough to make changes in their lives because it makes them feel better. I genuinely think everyone knows deep down that vegans are right, so they make up reasons as to why they're "unlikeable."
I'm sure in a century's time when we are able to produce meat without killing animals through biological technologies, people will look back at us as morally depraved.
I'm vegan now, previously vegetarian. But before this I was in exactly the same position as you describe. It's the first time that I'm actually hearing of someone who admits there can be an inconsistency between your own behaviour and your values.
Depending on what it is, sticking to your values is hard and requires changing your behaviour and habits. Your environment matters a lot. For me it was easy to switch to a vegetarian diet because my partner loves experimenting with cooking and collecting recipes. For many it won't be this simple.
I used to think it would be easy for people generally to admit that it's pretty unlikely that they're sticking to all of their values, but apparently it's not. I think it's impressive how you're managing not to let personal pride determine your opinion on this!
That's interesting! I might find myself in your position in the future but a combination of factors for me makes being vegan a bit difficult.
Did you phase meat out of your diet gradually or go straight cold turkey?
I appreciate the likely uncomfortable truth you present here. Much respect to you and I generally feel the same. Not everyone is willing to move on now, and that's just the nature of cultural norms. For me personally, I don't particularly care what other people do and just try to lead by example.
It is really uncomfortable but also complex. There's so many reasons people still eat meat but you can't really engage with the discussion without acknowledging how expensive/ time consuming following a fulfilling vegan diet that meets all bodily needs is. I think that's a big part of why people won't "move on." Someone else may correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know much on this but I feel like a good vegan diet is so heavily commodified that people can't afford it. The majority of people dom't have a choice as things are, and there aren't many policy changes being put in place to enable ordinary working to lower middle class people to seriously consider a vegan diets.
I do agree it requires significant education. I think it's about what's served to us as a cultural norm and thus habit-ingraining. For instance, my parents will never switch because it's too much effort to teach old dogs new tricks. They grew up around dairy farms and massive lobbyists in the meat & cattle industry shaping the menu of the America diet.
And admittedly, it would've been harder to be vegetarian 20 years ago or more than now, thanks to access to vegetarian options, wider produce options, and restaurant menus accommodating this.
To put in perspective, India and Asia has large populations subsisting on largely vegetarian / vegan diets for dirt-cheap. If for example it weren't the dairy and poultry lobbyists who reigned supreme in America but rather soybean and legume lobbyists, we'd be making the opposite arguments of convenience as we are now. It's sort of the same argument oil lobbyists made in resisting the shift to electric vehicles and rail transit.
I can't fully speak for vegans as I'm not one. I suppose I'm close to an Ovo-vegetarian who avoids dairy when possible but not religiously.
I can say that if you really want to be vegetarian or vegan, it CAN be done as cheaply if not more cheaply than the average middle or lower-class diet. But again it takes more education in nutrition to know exactly what you're looking for. When I first transitioned to vegetarianism, it was a massive learning-curve that took me at least 2-3 years to start getting a sufficient grasp on the dietary needs and adjust accordingly. Most people simply don't know how.
I don't agree with that, here's a study from Oxford University confirming vegan diets are on average 33% cheaper than omniverous diets.
It can be expensive going vegan if you eat brand name fake meat every day but everyday vegan staples (chickpeas, lentils, beans etc) cost very little.
Great study. To those who believe that raising own meat, dairy, eggs, hunts, fishes, or traps comes in as "nearly free food," either doesn't place a value on their time, and/or doesn't consider the large costs in investment and learning-curve / training involved. (And if it was that cheap and easy, then it would be reflected in low prices at the market and therefore still be cheaper. Evidently, it is not).
you're misreading my comment. I am not calling those methods nearly free (though, for some people, they are.) I'm talking about programs like SNAP or WIC in the USA or food banks or food distribution programs. if someone w literally hands you 5 pounds of pork, and you throw that out, you need to replace that food somehow, probably with money.
that study doesn't account for anyone who gets free or directly subsidized food, raises their own meat dairy or eggs, hunts, fishes, or traps. as a result, it excluded the actual conditions of basically every poor person in a developed country. for many people it is much cheaper not to throw away free or nearly free food and go buy vegan food.
Confidently Incorrect.
How so?
It's only admirable to be vegan if I agree with veganism, and I don't. It's no more admirable to be vegan than it is to be a scientologist.
The self-righteousness blasted everywhere is why you get made fun of.
Read this other comment and understand why people mention they are vegetarian or vegan: https://lemmy.world/comment/4652396
Veganism is mostly a diet.. not a religion. What does it even mean to say that you disagree with it? If some people feel like they should be vegan and they put effort into it and are willing to give things up, why shouldn't this be admirable?
no, it doesn't.
i'm just gob-smacked that you think trying to paint me as unstable somehow changes whether everything i've said is true.
your bourgeois standards of literacy don't change whether i'm right.
theres no causal mechanic that would result in less suffering. think of it this way: if i take a cup of water out of a bucket , then the bucket has less water. what is the mechanic by which less suffering exists?
edit:
after failing to meaningfully undermine my claim, this user decided to imply i have a mental illness, and lied about the nature of what i said and then tried to poison the well by editing their comment near the top of our subthread and has the gall to say i'm not participating in good faith. this accusation is, itself, bad faith. i encourage you to read what was said here, and decide for yourself whether being vegan reduces suffering.
double edit:
i'm no tankie. baby, i'm an anarchist.
Can you provide another example please? I'm not sure I follow the bucket analogy.
If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
What am I missing?
Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.
Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.
Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.
any excuse you make doesn't change whether more animals were killed this year than last, regardless of how many vegans there are.
I don't think I agree with this, as less people buy meat the demand for it falls. As the demand falls less is produced. Kind of a simple take I guess but I don't think your comment makes sense.
Is there an angle to this that I've missed?
as far as i can tell, that's never happened. so, in practice, being vegan has never caused a reduction in suffering.
that's not causal
this is not causal
Just double checked the definition of causal here and I'm pretty sure it is. As the demand for a product falls, less is produced.
that's not always true. sometimes demand falls and production continues.
how? how can you know whether a farm can even expand to accommodate more production?
i didn't like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don't blame you.
i'm just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.
that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn't so you can't.
Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.
Think of it this way. In a game of telephone, signal quality degrades. Remove the middle-men, you improve the signal-to-noise. In a similar manner, there is little point in raising livestock on land, only to greatly pollute said land, only to produce a substance in less quantity and quality than what you could've done in its absence. Less demand means less livestock raised or tortured.
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested... Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
Edit: This peculiar user who lacks the capacity to respond with a single coherent comment in the thread (Schizophrenia? I don't know...) espouses various logical fallacies and deflections. I am utterly unimpressed by their incoherent rebuttals and have no interest in discussing with bad-faith laziness. My points remain largely untouched.
these are not magic words which take the place of a properly constructed argument.
Please, consolidate your comments into one. If you cannot manage this simple task, then I don't know what point there is in discussing Thermodynamics with you.
no.
Then I don't care for your incoherent ramblings full of deflections and fallacies. See ya, buddy.
this is poisoning the well, handwaving, and lying. nothing i said was fallacious. nothing i said was incoherent. in fact, you are the one who is gish-galloping in multi-paragraph comments while i keep mine focused.
everything i've said has been true. no discussion of thermodynamics would change that.
what year did you go vegan?
how much has suffering been reduced?
that's not causal
this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn't.
Chill dude, I am a vegetarian myself. No time and energy is needed to be vegetarian.
for some people, it might.