this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
984 points (96.0% liked)
memes
10259 readers
2799 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or you could just not support abuse and murder. Also an option.
Small incremental changes are easier to make than big ones. It is also better to have many people reducing meat than just a few full vegans.
True, but my point still stands. Most people don't go vegan overnight.
In my experience they often do go vegan overnight though. The key tends to be actually connecting the food on your plate with where it came from and accepting that animals are capable of suffering. Once that connection is made, animal products simply aren't seen as food anymore and going vegan overnight is the only logical conclusion.
Some people may be further along the spectrum towards being vegan when this connection is actually made but regardless of if you are vegetarian, "only eat free range meat", or an unapologetic meat eater, once the connection is made they are vegan.
these people are by definiton not vegan. Trying to be more ethical by their choices, which is commendable - but not vegan.
Yes, that is my point. Whether someone is vegetarian, "trying to be more ethical" but still eating meat, or just a meat eater that has never even considered ethics, there is nothing that says you have to go through all of those steps to becoming vegan. In my experience, regardless of how far along you are in those "steps" once you make the connection between the food on your plate and the animals that it comes from and you realize that they are suffering for you, you go vegan. That could be meat eater to vegan, "ethical" meat eater to vegan, or vegetarian to vegan. My point is that in my experience that process does happen overnight.
Well it's not universal. For some it does, for some it doesn't.
I mean... reducing meat is how people would go vegan over longer period if time (as opposed to over night) though? Not sure where you were going with your original comment.
The word easier here is a choice. What is more comfortable is easier, but eating a plant based diet is very easy. It's cheaper and widely available in most countries. What you mean by easier really refers to more comfortable, not really to there being less physical obstacles
Depends on availability. Plenty of eateries don't have vegan options and this is especially true for locations accommodating larger groups. Furthermore, a lot of vegans need supplements (as I've been told), which is also subject to availability.
Lastly, it's easier to convince a thousand people to eat less meat – especially since they usually already have the ingredients required for vegetarian food at home – than to skip meat alltogether.
Two thousand meals a week that turned vegetarian is a lot more impact than 70 meals turned vegan.
It's not that a lot of vegans need supplements, they're just more aware of what the body should get, when in fact almost everyone likely needs supplements. They just don't know it.
Maybe you are thinking of processed vegan food, like a vegan nugget or hamburger. That is completely unnecessary. beans, lentils, chickpeas, seaweed, grains, rice, vegetables, nuts.... those are widely available and enough for a healthy diet.
For the rest I agree, it's easier to convince an omnivore to go vegetarian than vegan. But that has to do with their will, not with actual physical limitations.
It is easy once you are in, know what are the good vegan meals and how to cook them etc. Most people will have animal product for each meal - they don't know better. To them vegans just eat salads and nuts, which is obviously not enticing. If they don't take the easy way, they will just continue the only way they know how and change nothing.
I agree with you. I guess the difference lies in that I would call that laziness. Not knowing how to eat balanced meals (or more precisely, not looking it up), it's not a matter of it being hard or easy. It's a matter of simply doing it. All the information is out there and at a level anyone who can read will understand
I mean, you are not wrong. In a way easy way is always the lazy way - doesn't mean it is wrong. It can be daunting. Some people will take the fast, but hard way. Some people will take the longer/ but easy. If you end up in same destination, it's a win in the end.
I guess you meant to say fast but easy, or longer but hard, right?
I meant fast as in complete veganism overnight (hard) over slow, gradual change to eventually get to complete veganism (easier).
It's not the usual way the phrase goes I guess, or I just worded it badly
Aaaah ok ye now I get it.
I guess ultimately the end process is what's important, there I agree with you. However, with ethical issues, or matters of principle, you could argue time is of the essence.
For example, if the Western world had taken 30 more years in embracing the importance of LGTBIQ+ rights, we would be now at the same place as the likes of Russia or Saudi Arabia, which is a place we feel good about not being.
So in a way yes, the end result is what matters, but in the meantime it does kinda sucks to live in a society that normalizes something that will undoubtedly be considered morally wrong and unethical in the future
Totally! My point was that it's better slow than not at all. But obviously the faster the better.
Agreed!
You will get more people to join your cause with a positive message: i.g. "Do these small steps to start" than a negative one, I.g. "If you don't go fully vegan, you are still part of the problem."
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
So it is easier to convince people to reduce meat consumption, which than makes it more likely that people will go vegetarian or vegan later
And i actually feel like vegans on the internet can be too aggressive, alienating people they could get on their side
best is the enemy of better.
why are you giving vegans advice on how to market veganism? if the facts won't change your mind then it's not the fault of the vegans.
Because I want more people to become vegan and the way most people on the internet argue does not help this goal
I also want more vegans. there is no right way to change someone's mind. attack the problem from different angles is my view.
All compassion is good compassion
It's kind of hard to approach this in a tactful way. I think a lot of why vegans don't appreciate this approach is because it often doesn't work in actual practice. I'll give a personal example as an analogy - I used to be a smoker. I tried quitting at least 50 times over the time period I was addicted to nicotine. One of the tricks I would use was to reduce the amount I would smoke each day. It would help briefly, but what would always happen is that I would get to a point where it was too hard to reduce any further, and then after plateauing for a few days, I would rebound and smoke even more than I used to.
Reduction still played a role in my effort to quit, but there were a lot of other tricks I had to employ to make it stick, and the overarching point is that reduction as a goal went nowhere, but reduction combined with the intent to stop all together did eventually work.
And that's what also happens with dietary changes. Reduction starts with halfway good intentions, but when it's the goal it becomes a temporary self-soothe that simply ends up rebounding in the end. In fact the people who run wfpb health coaching clinics have stated in interviews that people are most successful when they go all in with the dietary changes - because it turns out that people often feel dramatic positive changes to their health within only days of going plant-based, and those positive changes reinforce their motivation to keep going.
And as this article points out, reducitarianism can never achieve justice. It's like when suits-wearers promise to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% by 2035 or something. It's better than nothing, but will never solve the problems that need to be solved.
https://www.surgeactivism.org/reducetarianism
If you feel facts are "aggressive", the problem is you, not the facts.
Of course facts can be aggressive
Let's assume you talk to someone from a first world country. It is aggressive to say your lifestyle is responsible for the death of children in the developmental world, you are indirectly a murderer
It is more helpful to say: try fair-trade chlothes and check for companies that you buy from
Dividing society does not help better it
The facts aren't agressive, it is the tone.
Your comment is about looking down on people... tongue in cheek or not, this is always the kind of stuff people post before complaining that the big mean vegans are alienating them... victim complex much?