this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
3394 points (100.0% liked)

196

16552 readers
2588 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] smooth_jazz_warlady@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, if you wanted to get the largest number of people to stop eating animals, the #1 thing would be donating money to lab-grown meat research, or at least getting other people to, rather than engaging in online arguments in a way that immediately causes people to get defensive and emotional. Sure, it's not doing anything yet, but the second it becomes less expensive than traditional meat (and that can't be hard, since you're only growing the flesh you want, rather than an entire fucking animal, it will be much more efficient given time), that's almost immediately going to sway a lot of people who do not give a shit about the ethics or morality of it, but do care about their budgets or bottom lines.

But hey at least you're not rounding up those ticks whose bite makes you allergic to red meat in order to do an eco-terrorism (8chan's /leftypol/ has just as much brainrot as the rest of that site), since a) that would cause an immense backlash and b) the difference would just be made up in chicken and fish anyway.

[–] ambiguous_yelp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Youre going about it all wrong: this method is how you convince people to stop slitting innocent animals throats. I know this method works because it didnt work on me." fyi if I could snap my fingers and somehow force everyone to leave animals alone I'd do it in a heartbeat, wouldnt you do the same to end all murder?

[–] smooth_jazz_warlady@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it's been scientifically shown that antagonistically trying to change someone's mind only serves to harden their existing views and make them less open to thinking about it. e.g. at this point I'm deliberately avoiding reading your response again, because all it provokes is my anger issues, all that achieves is putting me in a state where you are The Enemy and neither morality or ethics are considerations, and I try to avoid that with people I largely agree with but have one major sticking point against these days.

I've been in a similar position with urbanist/FuckCars stuff, where no matter how many arguments you make about how the suburbs are a blight upon the cities they parasitise and we need to densify now, how cars have no right being the #1 method of transportation within cities, or how SUVs should be banned within city limits, the carbrained suburbanite will ignore them all and continue going about their lifestyle without a thought about it. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

But you can always tap into the fear that comes with "this will economically ruin you if you keep doing this" and as such, high petrol prices are one hell of a gift for getting people to start catching public transport and/or biking, at least the ones who live in places where such a thing is physically possible. We're in the middle of a cost of living crisis, where the average person is getting evermore squeezed for what little they have, and you still can't shift your angle of attack from "you're a terrible person and you should feel bad" to "meat is the most expensive part of your diet and here are alternative ways to get that flavour/texture that cost far less (and incidentally are 100% plant)" and then work on them from there?

Just saying, the average(/mode) person using any English-language space on the internet a) is used to dishes where the meat, or at least some kind of fancy, dairy-based sauce, is the focal point and b) has no idea what the state of fake meat/meat alternatives is like right now.

[–] ambiguous_yelp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

most vegan cuisine has nothing to do with fake meat thats only been a thing for a couple of decades at most

[–] smooth_jazz_warlady@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ambiguous_yelp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

at the end of the day no matter what vegans do our existence is a threat to the cognitive dissonance of meat eaters, I have two options: I can be so nonchalant that it seems like I'm actually ok with people killing animals needlesly and therefore theres no reason to question their beliefs or I can actually put a bit of passion into my defense of animals and risk people like you for some reason getting annoyed that my advocacy isnt effective? (Like if you are against veganism why correct me while im making a mistake right clearly theres something else going on here psychologically why you feel the need to correct me) Meanwhile lots of people actually do change their mind on veganism from a no nonsense approach see people like joey carbstrong and earthling ed for examples of how that can be done well

[–] smooth_jazz_warlady@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, intellectually I agree that the current animal industry has to go at some point soon, albeit mostly for efficiency/environmental impact reasons, it's just that emotionally I find preachy vegans to be annoying as fuck. Especially given that as a neurodivergent person, a lot of us would have trouble cutting meat out of our diets, for samefood/sensory issue reasons (many vegetable textures I've felt over the years give me such bad vibes that I have to struggle to stop my gag reflex from kicking in), and the deeply ableist ways a lot of vegans react to this is concerning and borderline eugenicist.

And it's just, the Gordian Knot-cutting development of lab-grown meat (and also vat milk/eggs) becoming cheaper and less resource intensive than regular meat is pretty close, especially since the same technology also lets you grow replacement human organs from a patient's own cells, a holy grail of medicine. That will 100% cut the animal industry's legs out from underneath it, entirely because they simply will not be able compete in efficiency and cost, and reframes the choice from "noticeable drop in what and where you can eat in exchange for a moral benefit that you can't see for yourself" to "same thing, but cheaper and with a moral benefit you still can't see but can be more sure of because mass adoption". Also it'll be funny watching conspiracy nuts bankrupt themselves spending more and more on trying to hunt down "real, non-virus meat".

And if that day never comes youll just keep paying for innocent animals to be killed? Theres very little that can excuse slicing the throat of an innocent being