It is literally the accepted academic term for followers of the ideology that considers the use of specific non human animals as foodstuffs and materials acceptable. As opposed to various religious ideologies or philosophical ones such as veganism.
Like stuff has names, idk what to tell you. Getting bent up over being part of a named category is as silly as people who insist they’re not heterosexual or cisgender or whatever.
If you’re interesting in learning about the topic I can recommend Psychologist and researcher Melany Joy’s book “why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows” which explores this in a western context.
It is literally the accepted academic term for followers of the ideology that considers the use of specific non human animals as foodstuffs and materials acceptable.
That’s fair, but I’ve never heard it used outside of a vegan talking about how terrible “other” people are.
I also did NOT realize which sub I was on. That’s what I get for browsing all and then walking into a non-carnivorous lion’s den.
Like stuff has names, idk what to tell you. Getting bent up over being part of a named category is as silly as people who insist they’re not heterosexual or cisgender or whatever.
I’m not bent in any way. Like I said, the only people I’ve ever heard that word used are vegans. And it’s always said in a snide way as a derogatory term.
If you’re interesting in learning about the topic I can recommend Psychologist and researcher Melany Joy’s book “why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows” which explores this in a western context.
Nah I’m good. I love dogs and cows. And cows are tasty too.
It’s actually a documented phenomena that carnists feel more negative judgement from vegans than vegans actually judge carnists.
You have to remember that almost all of us were raised carnist, and many spent decades following the ideology before changing our minds. I went vegan at like 25, for all I know you’re 21 and will go vegan at 23 thus being a “better” person than me :p
I really would encourage reading, consider that almost all vegans were convinced in the face of inertia and overwhelming social pressure not to change. Consider also that at literally any point in the past we can see behaviours only a minority were calling out which we now find staggeringly cruel.
You don’t have to agree, but you only stand to gain by learning.
So a lot of this is just straight up wrong but it’s so scattershot it’s difficult to even address. I fail to see what this has to do with learning about what carnism is.
The stuff about wild animals is just the naturalistic fallacy, like that argument applies equally well against treating illness because in the wild the weak and sick die brutally. It’s like, ok? so what? We’re not wild snapping turtles, or musk rats, or great white sharks. We can behave in different ways.
The stuff about health is just wrong, there are definitely a few high profile people who have claimed malnutrition however having such broad medical knowledge you will know self reporting sucks and can’t be relied on. You’ll also know that people tend to rationalise their actions and about the power of the placebo and nocebo effects. Unless they were clinically examined it’s not worth much.
The stuff about obsessing over food and time/expense is also false. Most of us just eat whatever and do fine. I mean I have no deficiencies and and only take d3 (Australia, pale, sun is unsafe unprotected had to take when carnist too) and b12 which is cheap. Actual studies reflect similar rates of deficiencies to meat eaters with a few differences like iron being slightly more common than some plant nutrient and generally better serum levels of cholesterol.
All of this is also beside the ethical point. Like it’s entirely possible that the moral thing to do is just hard, or even self destructive. Like most people would agree that if you had to take food from someone else who would starve or starve yourself the moral thing is to starve. Fortunately it’s entirely possible to live a healthy life on a plant based diet, but even if it wasn’t ethics would probably demand being almost entirely plant based and eating the minimum amount of animal products obtained with the least impact to survive which isn’t the compromise you’re advocating.
It is literally the accepted academic term for followers of the ideology that considers the use of specific non human animals as foodstuffs and materials acceptable. As opposed to various religious ideologies or philosophical ones such as veganism.
Like stuff has names, idk what to tell you. Getting bent up over being part of a named category is as silly as people who insist they’re not heterosexual or cisgender or whatever.
If you’re interesting in learning about the topic I can recommend Psychologist and researcher Melany Joy’s book “why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows” which explores this in a western context.
That’s fair, but I’ve never heard it used outside of a vegan talking about how terrible “other” people are.
I also did NOT realize which sub I was on. That’s what I get for browsing all and then walking into a non-carnivorous lion’s den.
I’m not bent in any way. Like I said, the only people I’ve ever heard that word used are vegans. And it’s always said in a snide way as a derogatory term.
Nah I’m good. I love dogs and cows. And cows are tasty too.
It’s actually a documented phenomena that carnists feel more negative judgement from vegans than vegans actually judge carnists.
You have to remember that almost all of us were raised carnist, and many spent decades following the ideology before changing our minds. I went vegan at like 25, for all I know you’re 21 and will go vegan at 23 thus being a “better” person than me :p
I really would encourage reading, consider that almost all vegans were convinced in the face of inertia and overwhelming social pressure not to change. Consider also that at literally any point in the past we can see behaviours only a minority were calling out which we now find staggeringly cruel.
You don’t have to agree, but you only stand to gain by learning.
Removed by mod
So a lot of this is just straight up wrong but it’s so scattershot it’s difficult to even address. I fail to see what this has to do with learning about what carnism is.
The stuff about wild animals is just the naturalistic fallacy, like that argument applies equally well against treating illness because in the wild the weak and sick die brutally. It’s like, ok? so what? We’re not wild snapping turtles, or musk rats, or great white sharks. We can behave in different ways.
The stuff about health is just wrong, there are definitely a few high profile people who have claimed malnutrition however having such broad medical knowledge you will know self reporting sucks and can’t be relied on. You’ll also know that people tend to rationalise their actions and about the power of the placebo and nocebo effects. Unless they were clinically examined it’s not worth much.
The stuff about obsessing over food and time/expense is also false. Most of us just eat whatever and do fine. I mean I have no deficiencies and and only take d3 (Australia, pale, sun is unsafe unprotected had to take when carnist too) and b12 which is cheap. Actual studies reflect similar rates of deficiencies to meat eaters with a few differences like iron being slightly more common than some plant nutrient and generally better serum levels of cholesterol.
All of this is also beside the ethical point. Like it’s entirely possible that the moral thing to do is just hard, or even self destructive. Like most people would agree that if you had to take food from someone else who would starve or starve yourself the moral thing is to starve. Fortunately it’s entirely possible to live a healthy life on a plant based diet, but even if it wasn’t ethics would probably demand being almost entirely plant based and eating the minimum amount of animal products obtained with the least impact to survive which isn’t the compromise you’re advocating.
Banned for carnist propaganda. It expires in a month, please don’t come back with these hot takes when it expires