Silly downvoters. You’re absolutely right. Veganism has diet as a component, but at its core is a desire to limit harm to animals in every possible aspect.
If you eat only plants/mushrooms, but still buy leather shoes, down pillows, or wool socks - that’s not veganism, that’s just following a plant-based diet. The two concepts overlap, but they are distinct from each other.
This sort of pedantry also annoys and turns people away from the cause though. Typically when people say they’re vegan, they’re talking about their diet, and it’s easy to infer that based on context. I really hope you don’t go around browbeating self-professed vegans by going “nuh uh, you’re a liar, that’s a leather strap I see on your watch”
Lol, of course not. What would be the point of that? I can acknowledge someone being gifted a leather watch, or continuing to wear old leather shoes they bought from before they went vegan, as a vegan still trying their best.
But pointing out a verbal distinction on a chat board like Lemmy isn’t the same as calling people out in-person. The distinction matters, and this is an appropriate place to make that point. Harassing people for their choices is an entirely different scenario.
There isn’t really a verbal distinction though. “Vegan” is an overloaded word that has multiple definitions, and you can very validly use it to describe your diet. “Correcting” people by telling them they should say “plant based” instead is just pedantry.
The fact that most people don’t think about it critically doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explained and telling people who belong to a group that they can’t tell you what their group specifically is about is entitled and absurd.
Veganism is not a diet and there are a number of diets you may adopt while being vegan.
I can accept that the harm reductionism that Danielle is advocating for is good compared to the lack of restraint we have as a culture, but this does not make it vegan.
And the fact that you assume people “aren’t thinking critically” when they use a word in a way you don’t like says a lot about you. Makes you seem like the entitled one, actually.
If you can’t accept that saying “I eat vegan” or “I follow a vegan diet” is just as valid as someone saying “I’m vegan” in the context of taking about food/diets, you’re gonna have a tough time, because that’s just how our language is used.
I’m sure you can get away with telling trans people what they are without trans people or defining atheism without atheists. But sure. Sound off like the ignorant ass you are.
They’re comparing your ignorance about veganism to ignorance about other groups of people. You argue with vegans about the definition of veganism, while vegans in general are in agreement about this definition. This is like ignoring trans people describing what it means to be trans, or atheists describing what it means to be athiest.
It also gets super annoying when people start learning the watered-down meaning.
The number of times people have asked “But you eat fish, right?” because pescatarians call themselves vegetarians instead of taking 3s to explain “It means I eat plants and fishes” is real annoying.
Labels with a specific meaning that have practical applications should not be muddied with use like that.
Not pedantry.
Veganism is an ethical position, distinct from carnism, which is also an ethical position.
That may not be how the majority use the term, but it is possible for a majority to be misinformed. If vegans yield the term and it comes to mean “mostly eats plants, sometimes eat fish or pig or perhaps bear”,
what should they call
“tries to minimize animal abuse as far as possible and practical”?
Wouldn’t the new term also be eventually devoured?
Silly downvoters. You’re absolutely right. Veganism has diet as a component, but at its core is a desire to limit harm to animals in every possible aspect.
If you eat only plants/mushrooms, but still buy leather shoes, down pillows, or wool socks - that’s not veganism, that’s just following a plant-based diet. The two concepts overlap, but they are distinct from each other.
This sort of pedantry also annoys and turns people away from the cause though. Typically when people say they’re vegan, they’re talking about their diet, and it’s easy to infer that based on context. I really hope you don’t go around browbeating self-professed vegans by going “nuh uh, you’re a liar, that’s a leather strap I see on your watch”
Lol, of course not. What would be the point of that? I can acknowledge someone being gifted a leather watch, or continuing to wear old leather shoes they bought from before they went vegan, as a vegan still trying their best.
But pointing out a verbal distinction on a chat board like Lemmy isn’t the same as calling people out in-person. The distinction matters, and this is an appropriate place to make that point. Harassing people for their choices is an entirely different scenario.
There isn’t really a verbal distinction though. “Vegan” is an overloaded word that has multiple definitions, and you can very validly use it to describe your diet. “Correcting” people by telling them they should say “plant based” instead is just pedantry.
The fact that most people don’t think about it critically doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explained and telling people who belong to a group that they can’t tell you what their group specifically is about is entitled and absurd.
Veganism is not a diet and there are a number of diets you may adopt while being vegan.
I can accept that the harm reductionism that Danielle is advocating for is good compared to the lack of restraint we have as a culture, but this does not make it vegan.
And the fact that you assume people “aren’t thinking critically” when they use a word in a way you don’t like says a lot about you. Makes you seem like the entitled one, actually.
If you can’t accept that saying “I eat vegan” or “I follow a vegan diet” is just as valid as someone saying “I’m vegan” in the context of taking about food/diets, you’re gonna have a tough time, because that’s just how our language is used.
I’m sure you can get away with telling trans people what they are without trans people or defining atheism without atheists. But sure. Sound off like the ignorant ass you are.
Uh I’m sorry, what the fuck are you talking about now? Did you respond to the right person?
They’re comparing your ignorance about veganism to ignorance about other groups of people. You argue with vegans about the definition of veganism, while vegans in general are in agreement about this definition. This is like ignoring trans people describing what it means to be trans, or atheists describing what it means to be athiest.
It also gets super annoying when people start learning the watered-down meaning.
The number of times people have asked “But you eat fish, right?” because pescatarians call themselves vegetarians instead of taking 3s to explain “It means I eat plants and fishes” is real annoying.
Labels with a specific meaning that have practical applications should not be muddied with use like that.
Not pedantry. Veganism is an ethical position, distinct from carnism, which is also an ethical position. That may not be how the majority use the term, but it is possible for a majority to be misinformed. If vegans yield the term and it comes to mean “mostly eats plants, sometimes eat fish or pig or perhaps bear”, what should they call
“tries to minimize animal abuse as far as possible and practical”? Wouldn’t the new term also be eventually devoured?
this claim is made without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence