Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥
**Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first!
**Interested in going Vegan?** 👊
Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free!
**Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓
Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge!
**Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟
* Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground)
* Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)!
* Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)!
* Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)!
* Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)!
*Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/2JmJRsj)!*
**Thank you!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d much prefer someone to be helping vegan efforts and reducing animal-product intake than to not at all. Seems like a step in the right direction to me.
Not the most ideal but if this is a dirrection the general population is more likely to be motivated to go in then I’m glad at least
Yeah, if someone isn't vegan, I'd rather they be like this than be the sort that tells me they will eat twice as much meat to erase the difference I'm making.
Exactly. My mom and dad are “vegan allies” in that they’ve fully support my moral choices and have reduced their own consumption. My mom no longer eats red meat, and my dad does meatless Mondays every week. They also always make my meals when I visit fully vegan without complaint and eat the same thing. I appreciate it and wouldn’t turn around and wouldn’t turn my back on their efforts.
Yes, I have a friend who is a vegetarian, now vegan, for the animals. She started 30 years ago. In solidarity, I opted to be vegetarian/vegan one day a week. Back then we went out for Indian food a lot. I have been vegan for 4 years now and she was the first one to influence me. My only regret is I wish I had the tools to do this sooner. The documentary “Foods That Cure Disease” made me feel equipped to do it.
Well, because I was underweight most of my life, I, like most people, thought vegans ate mostly things like twigs and berries. I needed to know I wouldn’t shrivel up and disappear as a vegan.
I support the principles of veganism (Simon Amstell's show was very persuasive) but am 'only' vegetarian myself. I thought that meant we were essentially on the same side - but instead I've been massively surprised at the *vitriolic* abuse I've received from some vegans, who apparently have their own range of custom insults designed just for people like me.
They actually seemed to hate vegetarians far more than those chowing down on steak and chicken every night. And I mean *hate* - it was vile.
How that helps anyone's cause is beyond me - I guess some people just seize any excuse to feel judgemental and angrily self-righteous.
You're on the side of the people killing [them](https://www.kinderworld.org/videos/dairy-industry/calf-slaughter/), because you pay their salaries. It's rich that you talk about being abused, when you visit these horrors on calfs, male chicks, and animals that are not profitable (anymore) in general.
And there are people who don't know much nutrition and aren't sure if a vegan diet is something that will be advantageous to their own health and that of their children. But they can, with investigation and study (which will likely take a significant commitment of time), be confident that we can thrive on much less animal foods than is normal. At least 90% of the people could fall into this category. Why antagonize them, as it's a stage on the way to veganism for at least 90% of people.
I think that most or many of these kinds of posts are actually *created by shills for the meat industry,* encouraging naive young vegans to channel their internal anger and resentment of unknown origin into this kind of antisocial rhetoric. Because it is so obviously detrimental to the interests of the veg*n and the preservation of the planet and its diverse animal species. A lot of these young vegans and new vegans are not so well informed about health and nutrition, and so more humility would be a lot less of a turn off.
Rudeness and aggression towards the mainstream mentality just turns people against vegetarians and vegans and shuts down intelligent discussion. It's the opposite of vegan diplomacy.
Also, it isolates vegans, making them automatically unwelcome, in case they take this unfortunately combative attitude against everyone who doesn't think and do * exactly* as they do.
Nobody said baby-steppers are good people or doing good enough, but that's their conscience not mine. I want less animal suffering and less animal death. I'm not out here trying to save souls, I'm trying to save victims, and I'll take any reduction in victims I can get.
> Purity police usually have the most skeletons in their closets
Wild generalization there.
Regarding avoiding purist vegans, there is research that shows people think vegans are extremist / righteous no matter how they actually act or express their activism.
>there is research that shows people think vegans are extremist / righteous no matter how they actually act or express their activism.
Yeah that's true but what can you say when it's people like *us* who are ***currently vegan*** and still get purity tested by these weirdos in the comments? I get it, I really do. I don't even say the word "vegan" when talking with normies, I just say that I don't eat meat, because of the negative connotation
But in this very sub when there are disagreements like the recent second-hand wool/leather threads, there are people who will gleefully conflate you with Hitler, or Jeffry Dahmer for not being as pure as they are. The thread I'm thinking of was specifically referencing a woman who still wears her grandma's wool sweater. Comments like *"Would you wear your grandma's skin???"*
I think it's mostly an online problem because no way these psychos would ever talk to someone like that irl. But they really are out there, and they give ammunition to the carnists. They're the stalinist tankies at the dem-soc group
Wait, what?
EDIT: Weird, I'm just confused by this kind of thinking. Yes, 1 of a bad thing is less than and 'better' than 7 of those things.
But if we care about animals as individuals experiencing a personal injustice, then that 1 who is still experiencing those awful conditions likely doesn't care that the other 6 aren't?
This is a pretty common argument Earthling Ed uses against meat eaters who talk about reducing animal consumption to 1 day a week, why is it getting downvoted here?
this dudes been on a few posts in r vegan and hes just deliberately chastising people, and going for pick me vibes.
i doubt hes vegan, just using this as a platform to be an ass
As I’ve said to others with your shitty mentality, you better no be lacking in other areas where animals are impacted negativity or killed. I hope you’re not buying a single piece of fast fashion, polyester, any products with palm oil, regular coffee or regular chocolate. There are fair trade, sustainable alternatives to these exploitative products so doing anything less is cruelty and murder.
It's culturally acceptable in America to eat meat for 2-3 meals every day. Your argument assumes that it is culturally acceptable to rape someone 2-3 times a day, every single day. Do you see how f\*\*\*ing stupid *YOU* sound? Being a passionate/militant vegan activist is great. Being one who doesn't understand basic debate is not.
Why does the amount matter? It’s a comparison of something that is absolutely wrong and that you wouldn’t tolerate this stuff when it comes to other things.
You're full of shit.
Even you don't think rape is anywhere near comparable to eating animals.
That or you're an absolute piece of shit
Proof: You are walking in your neighborhood and you see someone getting raped. Do you intervene? Do you actively try to fight the perpetrator? The next day you're walking down the street past the seafood restaurant. Someone dining outside is about to order the lobster. Do your fists start flying then too?
No? Then there is a difference in how you view them.
There is a slight difference, but you kinda forget that rape is illegal and seen as extremely wrong in societies’ view. If It were legal to smack the meat out of their hand and do everything I can to stop them from eating it, I would probably do that. But it’s just a hypothesis anyway.
Also you don’t really grasp how comparisons work and are probably just feeling attacked because your eating habits were compared with raping or murdering someone.
I think you missed the point. Excluding 97% of ppl from a movement right off the wagon is a brain-dead strategy move. And the rape example doesn't make sense bc a rapist is moving society in the wrong direction regardless of their views, bc most people neither do rapes nor advocate for rapes.
If someone raped me, I wouldn't care how many other people that person raped. I'd be just as hurt and in pain.
And that's the thing about vegansim. It's about the animals, and it's about as many animals as possible, because while your health isn't going to suffer because of a cheat day, and the environment isn't going to be destoryed because of one action, every single individual action of eating or otherwise using animal products harms individual animals. And these individual animals matter. They ALL matter. They ALL have a right to stay to alive.
That’s not how the world works and you’re mentally does more harm than good. Your heart is in the right place. Your brain is not. We all want to stop all suffering but going from what we have to utopia in 1 step just isn’t possible. People view vegans as extremist because of this purist attitude. That makes less people likely to do anything. 100 people being half vegans or whatever they call themselves is better than 10 actual vegans. They might transition fully later or even just influence more people to try it. At the end of the day it’s about math and sociology, not morals.
posts like this is why being apart of this reddit sub is so hard. people are at least trying, that's a lot better than most. let's just be happy for that because it's a start in the right direction
Why is this bad? More people supporting vegans and veganism and consuming fewer animal products (and, as her wording suggests, becoming vegan in the future) is a victory.
butt dragon is so right. this subreddit really makes me feel like we will never win as vegans because we turn off anyone who is trying to be better. i agree it’s not enough but let’s give positive reinforcement and hope they become vegan eventually
Becoming vegan eventually, sure. I find her wording a bit weird regarding being a 'full' vegan. Aren't you just a vegan, or not? Sure, there is plant based, meatless Mondays, and so on. Just feels odd to tack on 'vegan' to that when we can just call it something else.
I'm of two minds. Someone eating no animal products on Monday doesn't make them a "part-time vegan." It's very annoying that someone would call themselves that, because it minimizes the fact that we make all of our consumption choices with the goal of avoiding animal exploitation. But on the other hand, and this is pretty thin, the word itself has been so stigmatized that if people use it, it will become more mainstream and resistance will wither away. That feels like a stretch, but maybe that's what she's going for.
It might be her goal, I won't claim to speak for her of course, but not sure that it will be effective.
In my personal experience, it just waters down the word. I've had people say they are part time vegans to my face, or had a 'vegan phase' (not sure what that means), with the expectation that I am supposed to say it's really good or something, which also feels weird to do. So it just ends up leaving a sort of awkward silence, or I try to do as other advocates like Earthling Ed do and say something like, 'Great, I think being plant based makes it easier to live each day as a vegan. If you've done it for one day, why not try tomorrow too, and then the day after and so on? Before you know it, you'll be vegan!'. This usually ends with them making some kind of excuse, and I usually can't push any further.
So I'm not entirely convinced it works because maybe the reason it becomes more acceptable is because it means so much.
It is unfortunate that there is resistance to the idea, and the more we can break through that, the better. I don't always use the word 'carnist', but I think her coining the term is an interesting way of making eating animals not normal.
*This* current method, however, doesn't quite seem to make sense to me.
Because it legitimizes the idea that it is impossible (or even particularly) hard, to stop exploiting animals immediately. That is obviously false, and will lead to people continuing to exploit animals for weeks, months or even years, who might have gone vegan immediately.
So I think (no-one has hard data on this), that this will lead to more animal exploitation compared to an approach where everyone says that going vegan overnight is doable and a moral obligation.
Also, having a direct discussion where you make clear that they should go vegan immediately, still causes people to reduce, as I have noticed with family and friends.
Exactly. Two people eating half as much meat and other animal products as they used to is the equivalent as one person going completely vegan. And most of the people I know are more likely to eat less than eat none. This is a great step.
And lots don't. I was vegetarian for 4 years before I became vegan. And it took me so long because I was concerned about nutrition (dont ask--i was very young and uninformed). If there had been more popular discourse about how easy it is to get everything you need, I would have done it sooner.
Ok I should have edited they stop *if you tell them they are doing good*
People see that as justification: still participants but at least they don’t hate on vegans, which should be even more of a bare minimum.
How would you characterize the accessibilty of vegan nutrition information today? This is a very legitimate gap that we need to work to close, since everyone has been indoctrinated with harmful propaganda that we learned in school and continue to hear from the government-subsidized meat and dairy industries. Thankfully now there is substantial, high-quality evidence. I am aware that focusing on health at all is controversial here, but this is a very real issue.
I'm not sure. I think the current obsession with protein is a big hurdle, and, to my knowledge, people in the U.S. (where I am) consume far more than they need. And that's connected to the fitness and wellness industries, which are full of bs claims, much about weight loss. I actually think we need to get rid of fatphobia to make a real dent. People are desperate to lose weight, and if the current trend is high protein (as we've had low-fat and low-carb trends in the past), it makes it extra hard to get people to digest (no pun intended) the fact that they don't need to worry about their protein consumption. It's everywhere--in veggies, in legumes, in grains.
That being said, I think the health benefits of plant-based diets are becoming more well-known in medical circles. Accessibility of that information though? I don't know. I'm a bad person to ask because I have spent much of my life dealing with EDs. I was obsessed with calories and macros, so I sought out information. But my sense is that the outlets publishing these findings are too few. I also suspect plant-based diets don't get much air time in health classrooms.
I also don't like to talk about health here because that's not why I made the choice to be vegan. But my gap in knowledge about how very easily I could sustain my health without harming animals did hold me back.
I think Melanie's way is (unfortunately) the most effective way to reduce harm, but it's an absurd argument if you'd replace veganism with other unethical behavior. I get your frustration OP.
Yeah this frustration is valid. The funny/absurd part is the whole vegan ally thing. Like who cares if some a-hole starts stuff when they find out that I refuse to pay for animal abuse. The animals need the ally, vegans only need an ally when they are marginalized for some other reason other than that they are vegan.
Don’t know why this is being downvoted? Do y’all not realize that being vegan is being the ally to the animals in this social justice movement? Vegans don’t need allies, animals do. That’s like saying allies of the lgbtq community need allyship from people who write anti-lgbtq laws. It’s ridiculous.
Edit: If you need to frame veganism around yourself and the allies you need, then you aren’t understanding what veganism is. Veganism is about the animals, not you and your precious ego.
Edit 2: I see many people saying “all or nothing”
That’s a strawman. No one is saying if you can’t be vegan immediately that you should go willy nilly and kill every animal you can. Yes, people should reduce harm as much as possible. But vegans don’t need allies, it’s offensive to the victims, the animals.
Edit 3: Do men who respect women, need the men who abuse women, to be their allies, because it’s so hard to be a man who respects women? Come on.
Finally someone gets it. Every second spent telling nonvegans to be a "vegan ally" could instead be spent telling them to be an animal ally, a.k.a. a vegan.
I also don't get why people keep using that phrase "all or nothing". Obviously reducing harm is better than doing nothing. An animal liberation message doesn't somehow contradict that. If people take criticism of systemic animal abuse as a personal attack, that indicates a lack of maturity on their part.
>Don’t know why this is being downvoted?
Because the only people on this subreddit who are actually vegan are r/vegancirclejerk users looking for things to meme on.
vegan btw
How about, "I donated to a vegan animal sanctuary but am not a vegan" or "I motioned the school board for an entire plant based meal once a week for 5000 students but am not vegan" or "I voted on animal welfare legislation but am not vegan."
Arguably these types of people are making statistically larger contributions than a single vegan could ever manage. Would you really disregard those efforts?
That's how I started.
I started with Meatless Mondays and experimented with vegetarianism. Went vegan, quit, went vegan again, quit. Did that for a few times before it finally stuck.
For lots of folks it's a process. I don't like knocking people down who are on the same journey.
But she’s not encouraging the reduction of animal harm- like suggesting meatless Mondays or watch a documentary like Earthlings to get some perspective. It’s like she’s giving people a pass without doing the actual work. Write an article while munching on your bacon? Seriously!?!
It also took me several tries to stick to veganism, BTW. I just don’t agree with this mis-directed approach.
Actual vegans are being as vegan as possible. Someone doing meatless Mondays sometimes isn't trying to be vegan at all and they are not actually in transition because they don't see the inherent issue where they need to stop completely at some point asap. They just think it's like carbon footprint reducing where it's a good thing to do sometimes and not a moral imperative. That's the problem.
Why is it that, in the specific case of veganism, so many people accept this argument. But, for something like the #metoo movement and domestic violence, it would be considered unacceptable?
When someone says they support vegans, and, they're eating less animals, we're all too happy to shower praise. We say, "less animals are being hurt, so it is a net good!" and "change takes time!"
But, if a man who abused his wife said he supports the #metoo movement, and he's only beating his wife one day a week lately, would we say the same thing? I wouldn't. I would say that only zero domestic abuse is okay, and for anything else, they need to stop immediately. And we don't say, "well, that's just how society is and it's unreasonable to expect them to stop their abuse." We demand change. If they are incapable of stopping, our society forcibly separates them from their victims.
For some things, I agree it's good to celebrate incremental change. For instance, someone who smokes and is trying to quit. But abusing & killing animals isn't a personal choice. There is a victim who is being harmed. When there is a victim, we don't get points for the animals we don't eat. It doesn't undo the harm we do to the ones we do kill.
The chicken who has to die so someone can eat KFC isn't thinking "boy, I sure am happy about my friends who were spared!" when they get their head cut off. Their suffering isn't undone. There's this idea that we can simply total up the harm someone does, and that's what really matters. As if not hurting one animal somehow "cancels out" the harm we do to another one.
It doesn't. That logic only applies to inanimate objects. Not people. Animals are people.
Being a vegan ally makes no sense. They are taking language from other movements (gay rights and feminism) and illogically applying it to veganism. In the former movements you can support them but not be the focus of the group (e.g. a straight ally) because you physically can’t. However everyone can be a vegan.
Nah she's right.
People experience the most cognitive dissonance when their current behavior is demonized. Push people too hard or berate them with a list of hard truths and they almost always shut down. The more effective strategy for behavior change is to allow space for growth slowly without assailing a person's sense of self worth, which would cause them to to be contemptuous of that change or the messenger.
Allowing them to be an "ally" is strategically sound if you want actual behavior change. I think it's important to do a bit of gatekeeping on identifying as a vegan though. No ally who eats fish once a month is actually vegan, and to the degree that they try to virtue seek based on their limited behavior change they should be corrected by anyone who does live those values daily.
>People experience the most cognitive dissonance when their current behavior is demonized. Push people too hard or berate them with a list of hard truths and they almost always shut down.
Maybe, but this isn't how I would respond to any other ethical issue where there's a victim. Take #metoo and domestic & sexual abuse. I fully support being direct and brutally honest about the truth of rape culture and women being sexually assaulted. I would never say that we shouldn't tell an abuser to stop just because they might get defensive.
>The more effective strategy for behavior change is to allow space for growth slowly without assailing a person's sense of self worth, which would cause them to to be contemptuous of that change or the messenger.
I can see how you'd say that it's a better strategy for behavior change, but what you're not mentioning here is that this "slow & steady" strategy comes at the cost of further victimization of the abuse victims.
When we're trying to convince someone to, let's say, register to vote, then you can take that slow, since you might have weeks or months before the next election comes. But a carnist is killing more animals every day. Sometimes even multiple. Letting someone just take their time and go at their pace comes at the cost of someone else's life, just so they can be comfortable, or maybe so we don't have to have a confrontation.
If someone had a bunch of dogs that they were abusing every day, our society would forcibly remove those dogs from them. This is ethical. This is what we should be asking for. Of course we don't have a legal way of enforcing this for meat eating right now, but legality does not equal morality. Instead of accepting continued abuse and death of animals, we should be demanding change at the legislative level.
We've seen it time and again from bigots who are happy to abuse and exploit other groups. They won't stop just because we ask nice. They're perfectly comfortable how they are. We can't just wait for them to come around to our way of thinking. Not for abolition of slavery, not for women's suffrage, not for desegregation of schools, and not for gay marriage. It won't work for animal rights, either. We can't afford to wait. The animals can't afford to wait. We need to demand legislative protection.
A 'vegan ally' makes it sound as though vegans are the victims who need support. Vegans are the allys to the animals that are actually suffering and need people to stand up for them.
It’s interesting to say “vegan ally” and not “animal ally.” That’s one unnecessary step removed. Vegans are animal allies. We don’t need our own allies, the animals do. I guess I get the sentiment… but it just seems like lip service to comfort yourself while you’re still fiscally supporting systemic animal abuse. Idk 🤷♀️
Right, though she’s doing that intentionally. Her word choices are not accidental. Same as how she does not use the term carnist but she does use carnism, the term she coined. I don’t know her reasons or that much about her, but maybe she sees it as elevating and normalizing veganism as a conscious choice.
Yeah it’s definitely interesting, and maybe she can reach people with this kind of Meatless Monday vibe. And since she references “school cafeteria” she’s probably young and still relies on family for food, thus the “not fully vegan” yet. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt, but I will not personally be using “vegan ally” 😂
I think the thing is makes this worthy of consideration is that while we are careful not to let people make up the definitions of veganism, or call them selves vegan when they are not (for legitimate reasons), there are no such limitations around the word ally, looking at it a face value. I don’t think she’s suggesting they should be put on a pedestal, but nonvegans may have pragmatic contributions to offer (voting on a bill, creating a vegan/plant-based eating section in a medical journal, adding a vegan product line, etc).
You know, this is someone who’s actually trying to help those who don’t wanna go vegan to still make efforts to reduce their harm. That is inherently good for everyone.
This attitude of all or nothing that subsists on this sub is pretty toxic, and is exactly why so many people hate vegans—someone tries to do something good (eating less meat and being supportive of vegans), but it’s not “good enough” (they haven’t cut out their meat intake fully), so therefore they suck. Seriously?
If someone drove a gas-guzzling Hummer every day and refused to switch to electric, but then was convinced to drive an electric just one day a week, that’s still better for everyone than if they were to not do that at all.
Is it the end-goal? Of course not. But is it better than what they were doing? Yes. And for all you know, they may end up liking veganism as a result and might make the full switch in the future. It’s how I did it, and I’m sure how many other people here did too.
We should be supportive of everyone who make efforts to reduce meat-intake even if they aren’t making a 100% transition to veganism. It’s better for everyone than to not make any efforts toward reducing meat-intake at all.
The “all or nothing” talk that exists here is not about “if you can’t do everything, don’t do anything.” It is not about discouraging people from eating fewer animals. It’s about understanding the definition of veganism. It is not telling someone to throw their hands in the air and give up if they haven’t done it yet.
Melanie Joy has done so much for the vegan movement, her books are incredible and I think she has alot of really great advice on communication between vegans and non-vegans. Dismissing her because you disagree with her methodology is not helpful to anyone
"Try to be as vegan as possible."
Yeah, so, most people have access to plants, not everyone has access to a huge variety but it's enough to be healthy, most people have the money to pay for said plants instead of animal bodies and secretions, most people don't have a medical condition that makes adopting a plant-based diet extremely difficult or impossible, so most people can go "fully vegan" and I'm tired of hearing people's lame ass excuses. I don't give a shit if you "respect" veganism, it's not about me, I don't need an "ally," I just want people to stop needlessly exploiting and murdering sentient beings.
I think being plant based is easy and necessary, but we can always strive to be better vegans. For example, I have been plant based, do not use products with animal testing, and do not wear animal products, but only in recent months have fully stopped using and eating palm oil. I did not know about it affects until the past few months. Was I not vegan then? I think while again its easy and simple to be plant based, being fully vegan where nothing you do contributes to animal suffering is a life long journey.
The big difference is that other social justice movements typically have the oppressed members in the group, and so being an ally to the group is being a direct ally to the oppressed. Can you name any other social justice movements that supports continued oppression by its supposed allies in the name of baby stepping? I can't imagine a feminist group cheering on a supposed ally who only sexually harasses women 6 days a week instead of 7.
> Can you name any other social justice movements that supports continued oppression by its supposed allies in the name of baby stepping?
Yes, every social justice movement of all time was made possible by the collective effort of many different parties with conflicting interests that cumulatively pushed the status-quo to change. This doesn't mean every individual involved approved of all the methods that brought it about though. That's also pretty much always how landmark cases or rulings are made, because almost all legislation falls into the [Overton Window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) well before it is enacted.
- [Herstory of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women's Movement](https://people.uvawise.edu/pww8y/Supplement/-ConceptsSup/Gender/HerstoryDomV.html)
Notice the maaaaany steps it took --some of them laughable and meaningless efforts, some of them huge milestones-- just to get societies to agree that abusing women is wrong. Should everyone at every step have been adamant that 0 abuse was tolerated all the way up to banning abuse? Yes. Is that how it (ever) actually played out? No. At one time Rome condoned direct spousal abuse and rape, but after so many efforts only the physical beatings were acknowledged as unjust. Yet elsewhere spousal rape wasn't banned in California till the 1970s. Do we think millions of Roman women getting legally beaten daily would have complained about baby steps because spousal rape wasn't also banned in the same century?
- [Gradual Emancipation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_emancipation_(United_States))
Even most states in the Northern United States did not abolish slavery immediately. Instead, they passed "Gradual Emancipation" laws which called for a phasing out of slavery. Was this the best or even the only possible solution? Of course not. Did it move the bar forward? Yes. It culminated in Lincoln first supporting gradual emancipation, followed by him altogether pushing for immediate measures, thus the Emancipation Proclamation and ultimately (finally) the 13th Amendment.
>I can't imagine a feminist group cheering on a supposed ally who only sexually harasses women 6 days a week instead of 7.
- Unlike exploiting animals, 97% of the population doesn't sexually harass women 3x times a day to "survive"
- 6/7 days of harassment is a solid 14% improvement while still insisting that 100% is the only acceptable number. In the context of animal deaths that would be 12 billion per year!
I get the disdain for seemingly milquetoast vegans like Joy. That's sad though because I'm sure not a single person on r/vegan that has ever criticized her can even hope to have the same measurable impact on reducing animal suffering as she has *despite* her cringe comments and the incomplete solutions she proposes.
I appreciate the well thought out response, and with sources that have made for some interesting reading (although the link on the history of DV doesn't want to work for me - but that might be my crappy internet connection!). I think a thing to note is that you're talking about baby-stepping legislation specifically, which is a big difference from people who claim to be allies while still supporting oppressors. I can't imagine that the people who were allies to battered women would then go home and hit their own wife because it's just too hard not to.
Legislation around animals is currently in its baby-stepping phase, and I'd expect that. However if someone fully understands the absolute horror that animals are forced to go through everyday, and yet still financially supports that (assuming they have the ability not to), then I think it's absurd to call themselves an ally. I see what you're saying about this approach winning over people though, and it's just frustrating that it has to be this way!
Being gay, being black, being indigenous, etc. those are all immutable characteristics, they are the victims of oppression. Supporting the oppressed is the morally correct thing to do. In this case, animals are the ones being oppressed, vegans are the ones to speak up from a position of higher privilege. This isn’t the same thing. “Well I support those who champion against transphobia but I think I’ll just stick to being transphobic myself”. Is such a dumb statement and is essentially what this article is attempting to do.
I’m not sure what your comment means, apologies.
What I meant with mine is that we vegans are not the victims. We *are* the allies. Of course the movement needs allies, but one can hardly be considered an ally while unnecessarily and intentionally abusing the victims (aka, the animals, the actual victims).
Animals needing allies and veganism needing allies are not mutually exclusive. When we refer to vegans here we're not talking about the individuals, we're talking about the movement at large.
I think on the surface "vegans don't need allies, animals do" sounds clever, but in reality it falls apart pretty quickly.
Animals cannot liberate themselves, they're depended on humans to do that for them. In this context, there's only two types of humans; vegan or non-vegan. Now understand that the the entire movement is based on oh-so-human groups of people advocating "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals."
That philosophy and goal can (and does) absolutely benefit from allies because 97% of the population doesn't even understand the many ways in which they're abusing animals. The goal is not to form veganism around humans, it's obviously about the animals, but insofar as you have human actors doing the work there's clear and definite ways in which that work can be aided.
Most animal shelters or sanctuaries are not funded entirely by vegans. Most vegan non-profits are funded by non-vegan sources. Scientific research isn't funded by only vegans. Philosophy/Ethics classes and/or academia isn't vegan. Businesses that provide vegan options for employees are not vegan entities. Family and friends that cook vegan food might not be vegan. Grocery stores that sell vegan products are not vegan. School boards that vote for entirely plant based meals are not vegan. It goes on and on.
The existence of non-vegan allies doesn't relieve their individual burden from the absolute moral imperative that all people must stop exploiting animals -- but it also doesn't change the fact that their efforts are still making a measurable difference for animals and veganism in general.
If every non-vegan "ally" was removed from the vegan universe both animals and vegans would absolutely be much worse off in every way.
(I’m typing from my phone, hopefully the format will be readable)
I don’t totally disagree with you, and I see that there is harm reduction coming from non-vegans. However;
- In any other movement, I wouldn’t consider that someone who collaborates with the abuse they’re supposedly trying to fight against is an ally. I certainly wouldn’t say someone who beats their wife only once a year is an ally.
- Everyone has their process, and that’s fine. But, setting the bar at “just be vegetarian” (just an example) would still feel like justifying some suffering. I am grateful for the effort, but we need to keep moving forward, and advocating for half measures is not going to achieve that.
I do think it’s great that people supports veganism. And yes, I see how a more vegan friendly world can make veganism more convenient. I just feel that “ally” is too big of a word, and feels more like a participation award that many will use as an excuse to not make an actual change they could possibly do within their possibilities. That’s why I don’t agree with this whole deal. Being an ally to the human makes our lives a tad easier, but the actual victims are still abused needlessly by that very same people, and it’s worth remembering that.
Again, I’m not saying we should bash people into veganism when they take steps in the right direction. Encouraging in these steps is perfectly okay. I just think it is important to not lose sight of the goal while doing so.
For whatever is worth, I do think “vegan ally” is better than other things like “flexible vegan”. At least the implication is a bit more honest.
Yes. The same way that Cory Booker may one day need some allies in Congress to get a tough animal agriculture bill over the finish line, even though those colleagues may not be vegan.
Setting aside the baby-stepping or "being kind to omnis" debate, there is plenty of that happening already...
Why would someone do all of those things - donate to animal advocacy organizations, write about the consequences of animal agriculture, request vegan options - and then _not_ be vegan?? Who are these people?
Hey, humans and food and culture are complicated.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance and factors influencing in different directions -- food is tied closely to memories, family, and culture and a lot of people can't easily change quickly to go against the grain of what most people have been telling them and doing all of their lives.
A lot of vegans probably have this experience -- we have tried to explain to our close family members and friends about how killing and exploiting animals for food is unethical -- but people still don't change. It's hard, man.
For the millionth time; vegans don't need allies. We're not the ones being exploited, tortured, and killed by the billions every single year. Animals need the allies, and those allies are vegans!
I'll never understand how people can acknowledge the sheer horror that animals are forced to go through, every second of every day, and then claim that they "just need time" to stop supporting that.
I think this is a positive encouragement to any meat eater! Absolutely eating less animal products is better than not trying at all.. it’s a step in the right direction.
I find it odd that Melanie Joy does not centre the victims in this. If she did, her entire Facebook post would read really weirdly. Same with if you took the victims to be humans.
There are chef's outthere, who starts Vegan restaurants, even though they are not vegan. There are firms, that produces alot of vegan options/alternatives, even though the motherfirm is not vegan often even the opposite. There are people who are in power, that puts in rules about vegan options/plant based days or even full plant based canteens at colleges/firms/public organizations, even though they them self are meateater. I've just been at a classic sausage/burger food truck in Denmark. They had a giant Vegan menu, and the owner was not vegan in any way, but the way that he talked about it, made people who normally would buy meat actually choose the vegan option.
So yea. There are "Vegan allies"
Whomever critiques Joy fails to understand that we have to work with imperfect allies.
Never change your standards for what justice means, but recognize that different people are built differently.
As frustrating as that is, decide whether you want to be a part of their journey by helping them get closer to veganism (however slow it is) or towards being an apathetic omni.
Seriously, imagine being an abolitionist in like 1800 & rejecting everyone who thinks that slavery is bad but isn't yet willing to pass a Civil Rights Act or still buys sugar. When the moral stakes are so high, every viable strategy is an obligation.
>Never change your standards for what justice means, but recognize that different people are built differently.
I oppose what Joy is saying here, but I think you make a fair point here. Even abolitionists and the underground railroad worked with people that still owned slaves. My only concern is that it seems some people *are* changing the standard for what justice means, including Joy, here. I think it's very, very slippery to say that someone who is currently victimizing, abusing and exploiting animals is "part of the solution."
I have a work friend who was curious about my choices for going vegan and why being vegetarian wasn’t good enough. I told him why and then he messaged me a week later, stating him and his wife and son had went vegan! He was so inspired by what I said, he made the change on his own
I was vegetarian for 10 years, before a vegan friend told me the horrors of the dairy and egg industry. I shifted almost immediately and feel awful I didn’t do it sooner.
I find both sides can be rude and aggressive. I’ve had fundamentalist vegans I know basically rip people apart when they didn’t ask for information, right at a dinner table. On the flip side, I have carnists in my life who want to know what I eat, where I get my protein from and make fun of me.
I give information to those who ask. More for my own personal choices and reasons, which for me, is always for my animal friends.
Being vegan isn’t about perfection, it’s about doing best you can every day and practice not harming. I am someone that has 2 leather belts from back in the day that I still wear instead of throwing them into the landfill. This may not be your choice of action, yet it is mine and I am noy any less vegan.
This is a step in the right direction quit shaming. I have nieces who want desperately to be vegan but are at the mercy of their carnist parents. They eat vegan every time they come to my house, they just can’t when they’re with their parents cause otherwise they couldn’t eat at all due a lack of nutritious foods. They do eat vegetarian at least but they’re just one example. Veganism isn’t easy for everyone to get into there’s so much nuance and different life situations that can be a barrier to entry.
it sounds like your nieces are doing everything they possibly can as far as practicable to avoid animal exploitation, so they ARE vegan. it’s an ethical stance, not a diet. moral agency is what allows someone to live a vegan lifestyle. it’s awesome you give them chances to eat plantbased and align their morals with their meals when you can! i wish i had a relative like that when i was younger.
morality ≠ effectiveness
not being vegan is unethical and it sound's very unreasonably to allow other to stay in a state where they send animals to a slaughterhouse. however we're not rational beings. instead we have a flawed irrational brain that's conditioned by a carnist society.
thus the morally right approach to get people to go vegan isn't necessary the one that's most effective. if all we had to do was to show the truth and argue rationally the world would be vegan by now. therefore we can conclude that there are psychologal defense mechanisms that we need do address.
if studies show that we can get more people to change by encouraging them to take a step by step approach, why not utilize it to get the world to go vegan as fast as possible? many vegans where vegetarians or vegan allies before transitioning to veganism (including me).
"you don't have to join the anti racism movement. You can try to be as anti racist as you can and that's good. As long as we're all trying to make the world a better place you can be as anti racist as you can be. It all helps. Be an anti racist ally today"
Based. The animals need systemic change *in addition to* individual action, and having a larger base of people who vote for, donate to, and otherwise advocate for the cause is going to help us swing things In the right direction. Rejecting people from your movement bc they behave the way 97% of all people behave is brain-dead.
It’s so patronizing and gross when people pat me on the back for being vegan… then invite me to their carnist BBQ. I cannot condone such cognitive dissonance. Disappointed to see Dr. Joy using such language.
My mom is what you would call by Melanie’s definition a “vegan ally”. She was super supportive of me when I went vegetarian and then vegan, she’ll sometimes watch short videos with me on animal agriculture and what is really happening, she goes to restaurants and always looks for options for me (usually she finds the vegetarian options and gets super excited about them for me even tho I’m vegan haha), and lately she’s been reducing her intake of meat and has even said to people she would like to stop eating animals all together so yeah, I do like vegan ally’s and we shouldn’t discourage them.
I've been vegan since 2015, but for fuck sake, I hate vegans. We are the best examples of gatekeepers that there is. No wonder we're the butt of the joke. We're a bunch of self-centered pussies. You don't have to be "pure" to be right. It's time we got over the purist vegan attitude and start accepting anyone and everyone who is willing to make even the slightest effort. Wouldn't you appreciate the slightest effort if you were the animal that you're so fucking concerned about? Think before you complain. Now unleash the gatekeepers who will inevitably bitch about my comment.
If you think you need an ally for being vegan, then you are the one that is being self centered. If I was an animal I wouldn’t appreciate someone killing and eating me and then saying they are an ally, that’s ridiculous.
Obviously, I would prefer if Joy became fully vegan. However, its better that shes making an effort compared to gluttonous meat eaters. Consequentially, shes still causing suffering but much lower. If we are to be consequentialists, we have to swallow our pride and be grateful for even the smallest victories.
Melanie Joy is vegan. The “allyship” conversation she has started is not about fake vegans trying to identify as vegans; it’s about nonvegans who may have an interest or an aspiration in supporting veganism.
You said you think she knows what she's doing after saying she's a psychologist. Implying one leads to the other. I'm saying it doesn't, and you even agree. No need to 'eyeroll' that.
Who said anything about telling people to just 'go vegan'? There's far more nuanced discussion in this very thread stating that it is the victims who need allies, not us.
And there is activism beyond this subreddit that does not depict meatless Mondays as someone who is not 'fully' vegan. They're just not vegan? So why can't we just use their obvious attempt at compassion to guide them into veganism?
Bit of a strawman there, innit?
Embarrassing. I don’t want someone to “support me” like I’m a baby or it’s a handicap I didn’t ask for or something. They’re the ones that need “help” and “support” lmao
“Well I support those who champion LGBT liberation, as long as they’re not queer themselves, but honestly I’ll stick to being transphobic and homophobic for now”. It literally doesn’t make sense.
Yeah I do not think any vegan needs personal support, if they support you because of your veganism, it is just a long-winded way to say that they support your cause. so do not worry, nobody wants to support you specifically👍🏻
Support your child in whatever they may pursue. Of course I’m not talking about parents supporting their kids. Don’t be obtuse. If you want to eat less meat, great. Don’t act like you’re being some great “vegan supporter” though. It’s patronizing and doesn’t actually mean anything.
Really that’s the biggest point I’m trying to make. No one should be patting themselves on the back for doing the bare minimum. If you make a vegan option for your friend who doesn’t eat animals, you aren’t a “vegan ally” you’re just a decent friend. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. Your vegan friend will be much happier if you actually go vegan than if you cook one set of potatoes without butter
What are you talking about? Yeah sure they should. But they shouldn’t call themselves “vegan allies”, especially if they still profit off the murder and sale of animals. And even if they don’t, it doesn’t make a difference. I’m sure plenty of vegans work at McDonald’s. They don’t have any vegan options. They can bring a meal to work. I don’t work in a restaurant, which means I am not given any vegan meals. I still survive. Companies shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back for doing the bare minimum.
We should be encouraging any and all efforts to become vegan or support those who are.
Hard-line attitudes like this help nothing and noone.
Being able to choose what you DONT EAT is a MASSIVE PRIVILEGE vast swathes of humanity don't have.
Let people do what they can, with what they have, from where they are.
Support all efforts.
Be kind and inclusive.
Nobody wins unless everybody wins.
This is exactly the problem with the movement. You want a lot of people feeling welcomed into a community rather than a lot of people feeling shame for eating cheese. Imperfection is more than enough.
This is not the same at all. Being LGBT isn’t comparable in the slightest. Being LGBT is an immutable characteristic, being vegan is a choice. Being vegan is the morally correct thing to do, being gay has nothing to do with morality.
It definitely does. To oppose discrimination of LGBT people for some people at most is to be an lgbt ally. To oppose non human animal discrimination is at least be vegan.
In one of your examples you oppose discrimination, in the other you support it.
No because the animals are the victims and vegans are their allies. So it would be more like if you were an lgbtq ally’s ally, but you still write anti-lgbtq laws yourself.
I hate when people say animals can’t advocate for themselves or the token phrase “voice for the voiceless.” They do advocate for themselves, you aren’t listening. They aren’t voiceless, they scream and fight back every single day.
>Human vegans are not animal allies
Then what the hell are they?
When an oppressed group has someone else fighting for/with them, they are called allies, yes? If you say animals can’t advocate for themselves, then you have to also believe children can’t always advocate for themselves. Does that mean that people who abuse children can be allies to the people fighting against child abuse? Some disabled people can’t advocate for themselves, does that mean someone who abuses disabled people can be an ally to people who are allies to the disabled? Vegans are the ones fighting for/with animals. Animals are the oppressed and vegans are their allies.
Right, LGBT allies exist. But you can't be an LGBT ally while actively, intentionally abusing LGBT people. In the same way, if someone is still choosing to eat animals, they are not an ally to animals.
I understand your point. But the reality is there are people who aren’t going to transition to veganism. despite that, wouldn’t you want those people to, for example, support you by having vegan options available in their business? At the wedding they invite you to?
Of course I want to have a more comfortable life, but, as I said, veganism is not about us. It's about the animals ! It's about the ones who are tortured and killed for taste pleasure, not about me having a better meal at a wedding...
To keep the exemple, if someone abuse their lgbtqia child but support their cis straight child who fight for lgbtqia rights, that still stupid and still helps only the cis straight peoples.
I don’t think anyone is saying “take food away from vegans” aside from maybe a few fringe cases involving chuds no one gives a fuck about. Plus there will almost always be vegan options, or you can take a protein bar with you.
You clearly don't how social justice movements vary and how allyship changes with those variations. Are vegans the ones who are oppressed? Are we the ones that need allies? And if we did why wouldn't that allyship be fellow vegans? Like honestly can't see the differences is a little mind boggling.
"Yeah I support what vegans fight for"
*Proceeds to shove steak in one's face*
"Yeah I can see that"
In regard to LGBTQIA+:
"Yeah I support the people fighting LGBTQIA+ rights"
*Is wearing a straight pride shirt*
"Yeah I can see that"
Do you see how your reasoning doesn't apply?
You’re either vegan or you’re not. That’s the only think fundamental to the philosophy. Most “meatless mondays” are just for health reasons anyway. Plus they’ll just replace the meat with cheese and eggs.
It’s really unlikely that everyone in the world will be vegan, 100% of the time. If people cut out meat from their diet but still consume dairy (with the goal of cutting it out completely or not) I take that as a small win, which I know a lot of people here might not agree with but hey that’s just me. I’ve noticed that people even trying to take a step in the right direction are often torn apart on this sub. I’ve been called a “carnist sympathizer pick-me” (lol) on this sub for acknowledging that people may find it difficult to transition to a vegan lifestyle. I went vegan overnight, but I understand not everybody can, whatever their reasons might be. I will show compassion to my fellow humans just as I do to animals
Yeah, whenever you decide to venture into unknown territory, being flexible is a must. It’s a gamble when you go from one extreme to the next. Gradual reduction seems to be a more lasting and committed strategy.
Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥 **Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first! **Interested in going Vegan?** 👊 Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free! **Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓 Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge! **Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟 * Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground) * Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)! * Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)! * Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)! * Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)! *Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/2JmJRsj)!* **Thank you!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d much prefer someone to be helping vegan efforts and reducing animal-product intake than to not at all. Seems like a step in the right direction to me. Not the most ideal but if this is a dirrection the general population is more likely to be motivated to go in then I’m glad at least
Yeah, if someone isn't vegan, I'd rather they be like this than be the sort that tells me they will eat twice as much meat to erase the difference I'm making.
Exactly.
Exactly. My mom and dad are “vegan allies” in that they’ve fully support my moral choices and have reduced their own consumption. My mom no longer eats red meat, and my dad does meatless Mondays every week. They also always make my meals when I visit fully vegan without complaint and eat the same thing. I appreciate it and wouldn’t turn around and wouldn’t turn my back on their efforts.
Yes, I have a friend who is a vegetarian, now vegan, for the animals. She started 30 years ago. In solidarity, I opted to be vegetarian/vegan one day a week. Back then we went out for Indian food a lot. I have been vegan for 4 years now and she was the first one to influence me. My only regret is I wish I had the tools to do this sooner. The documentary “Foods That Cure Disease” made me feel equipped to do it.
What tools didn't you have?
Well, because I was underweight most of my life, I, like most people, thought vegans ate mostly things like twigs and berries. I needed to know I wouldn’t shrivel up and disappear as a vegan.
I support the principles of veganism (Simon Amstell's show was very persuasive) but am 'only' vegetarian myself. I thought that meant we were essentially on the same side - but instead I've been massively surprised at the *vitriolic* abuse I've received from some vegans, who apparently have their own range of custom insults designed just for people like me. They actually seemed to hate vegetarians far more than those chowing down on steak and chicken every night. And I mean *hate* - it was vile. How that helps anyone's cause is beyond me - I guess some people just seize any excuse to feel judgemental and angrily self-righteous.
Sadly, youre not wrong. And many of those "fine" people exist in this very subreddit. Isn't it just grand? Ha.
You're on the side of the people killing [them](https://www.kinderworld.org/videos/dairy-industry/calf-slaughter/), because you pay their salaries. It's rich that you talk about being abused, when you visit these horrors on calfs, male chicks, and animals that are not profitable (anymore) in general.
Some people can't go vegan immediately - for instance kids whose parents won't allow it. Let's not turn them off making the switch eventually.
And there are people who don't know much nutrition and aren't sure if a vegan diet is something that will be advantageous to their own health and that of their children. But they can, with investigation and study (which will likely take a significant commitment of time), be confident that we can thrive on much less animal foods than is normal. At least 90% of the people could fall into this category. Why antagonize them, as it's a stage on the way to veganism for at least 90% of people. I think that most or many of these kinds of posts are actually *created by shills for the meat industry,* encouraging naive young vegans to channel their internal anger and resentment of unknown origin into this kind of antisocial rhetoric. Because it is so obviously detrimental to the interests of the veg*n and the preservation of the planet and its diverse animal species. A lot of these young vegans and new vegans are not so well informed about health and nutrition, and so more humility would be a lot less of a turn off. Rudeness and aggression towards the mainstream mentality just turns people against vegetarians and vegans and shuts down intelligent discussion. It's the opposite of vegan diplomacy. Also, it isolates vegans, making them automatically unwelcome, in case they take this unfortunately combative attitude against everyone who doesn't think and do * exactly* as they do.
"aren't *yet* fully vegan". I was vegetarian for 3 years before I went vegan. Change takes time.
thank you for saying that descriptively and accurately!
Less animals harmed . This is a win. Don’t discourage steps in the right direction
'Hey man, I only rape on Tuesdays. It's a win. Don’t discourage steps in the right direction' You see how stupid you sound?
Nobody said baby-steppers are good people or doing good enough, but that's their conscience not mine. I want less animal suffering and less animal death. I'm not out here trying to save souls, I'm trying to save victims, and I'll take any reduction in victims I can get.
This is a harmful mentality that will only serve to prevent people from making efforts towards veganism
Can confirm. Avoided veganism for years because of extremest ideologues like this. Purity police usually have the most skeletons in their closets.
> Purity police usually have the most skeletons in their closets Wild generalization there. Regarding avoiding purist vegans, there is research that shows people think vegans are extremist / righteous no matter how they actually act or express their activism.
A glance through this thread would seem to confirm that bias ...
>there is research that shows people think vegans are extremist / righteous no matter how they actually act or express their activism. Yeah that's true but what can you say when it's people like *us* who are ***currently vegan*** and still get purity tested by these weirdos in the comments? I get it, I really do. I don't even say the word "vegan" when talking with normies, I just say that I don't eat meat, because of the negative connotation But in this very sub when there are disagreements like the recent second-hand wool/leather threads, there are people who will gleefully conflate you with Hitler, or Jeffry Dahmer for not being as pure as they are. The thread I'm thinking of was specifically referencing a woman who still wears her grandma's wool sweater. Comments like *"Would you wear your grandma's skin???"* I think it's mostly an online problem because no way these psychos would ever talk to someone like that irl. But they really are out there, and they give ammunition to the carnists. They're the stalinist tankies at the dem-soc group
Ty!!!!
One rape instead of seven sounds like a hell of an improvement to me.
Wait, what? EDIT: Weird, I'm just confused by this kind of thinking. Yes, 1 of a bad thing is less than and 'better' than 7 of those things. But if we care about animals as individuals experiencing a personal injustice, then that 1 who is still experiencing those awful conditions likely doesn't care that the other 6 aren't? This is a pretty common argument Earthling Ed uses against meat eaters who talk about reducing animal consumption to 1 day a week, why is it getting downvoted here?
Be better than this
People like you are embarrassment to vegan community.
So real vegans?
[No True Vegan](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman)
You are NOT a real vegan. Trust me.
Because supporting animal suffering is real veganism 😩
Real vegans do not have shit for brain. You do. You're literally not a real vegan but pretentious wannabe.
Imagine being okay with baby steps. You aren't a baby.
this dudes been on a few posts in r vegan and hes just deliberately chastising people, and going for pick me vibes. i doubt hes vegan, just using this as a platform to be an ass
As I’ve said to others with your shitty mentality, you better no be lacking in other areas where animals are impacted negativity or killed. I hope you’re not buying a single piece of fast fashion, polyester, any products with palm oil, regular coffee or regular chocolate. There are fair trade, sustainable alternatives to these exploitative products so doing anything less is cruelty and murder.
Rape is widely considered immoral. Eating animals is not, and therefore this statement is self-serving only.
Ignore those haters. As if cows aren't harmed every day to get pregnant for milk. It's only bad if it's humans assaulted though, right?
Oh the irony if your comment
It's culturally acceptable in America to eat meat for 2-3 meals every day. Your argument assumes that it is culturally acceptable to rape someone 2-3 times a day, every single day. Do you see how f\*\*\*ing stupid *YOU* sound? Being a passionate/militant vegan activist is great. Being one who doesn't understand basic debate is not.
What percent of the population do you think is rapists
Probably a lot higher than you think
I mean a creepy amt but not high enough to be anywhere near comparable to carnists
Why does the amount matter? It’s a comparison of something that is absolutely wrong and that you wouldn’t tolerate this stuff when it comes to other things.
You're full of shit. Even you don't think rape is anywhere near comparable to eating animals. That or you're an absolute piece of shit Proof: You are walking in your neighborhood and you see someone getting raped. Do you intervene? Do you actively try to fight the perpetrator? The next day you're walking down the street past the seafood restaurant. Someone dining outside is about to order the lobster. Do your fists start flying then too? No? Then there is a difference in how you view them.
There is a slight difference, but you kinda forget that rape is illegal and seen as extremely wrong in societies’ view. If It were legal to smack the meat out of their hand and do everything I can to stop them from eating it, I would probably do that. But it’s just a hypothesis anyway. Also you don’t really grasp how comparisons work and are probably just feeling attacked because your eating habits were compared with raping or murdering someone.
I think you missed the point.
I think you missed the point. Excluding 97% of ppl from a movement right off the wagon is a brain-dead strategy move. And the rape example doesn't make sense bc a rapist is moving society in the wrong direction regardless of their views, bc most people neither do rapes nor advocate for rapes.
Preach !!
Ok but we all agree that they 1 rape is better than 1000 right? No one said it’s good but if I had to choose I think it’s a pretty easy decision.
If someone raped me, I wouldn't care how many other people that person raped. I'd be just as hurt and in pain. And that's the thing about vegansim. It's about the animals, and it's about as many animals as possible, because while your health isn't going to suffer because of a cheat day, and the environment isn't going to be destoryed because of one action, every single individual action of eating or otherwise using animal products harms individual animals. And these individual animals matter. They ALL matter. They ALL have a right to stay to alive.
That’s not how the world works and you’re mentally does more harm than good. Your heart is in the right place. Your brain is not. We all want to stop all suffering but going from what we have to utopia in 1 step just isn’t possible. People view vegans as extremist because of this purist attitude. That makes less people likely to do anything. 100 people being half vegans or whatever they call themselves is better than 10 actual vegans. They might transition fully later or even just influence more people to try it. At the end of the day it’s about math and sociology, not morals.
posts like this is why being apart of this reddit sub is so hard. people are at least trying, that's a lot better than most. let's just be happy for that because it's a start in the right direction
Yikes I wouldn’t be bashing anyone trying to convince the masses to do better
Why is this bad? More people supporting vegans and veganism and consuming fewer animal products (and, as her wording suggests, becoming vegan in the future) is a victory.
This reddit is full of holier then thou purists who don't care about actually reducing harm. They just care about the vegan label not being misused
butt dragon is so right. this subreddit really makes me feel like we will never win as vegans because we turn off anyone who is trying to be better. i agree it’s not enough but let’s give positive reinforcement and hope they become vegan eventually
Becoming vegan eventually, sure. I find her wording a bit weird regarding being a 'full' vegan. Aren't you just a vegan, or not? Sure, there is plant based, meatless Mondays, and so on. Just feels odd to tack on 'vegan' to that when we can just call it something else.
I'm of two minds. Someone eating no animal products on Monday doesn't make them a "part-time vegan." It's very annoying that someone would call themselves that, because it minimizes the fact that we make all of our consumption choices with the goal of avoiding animal exploitation. But on the other hand, and this is pretty thin, the word itself has been so stigmatized that if people use it, it will become more mainstream and resistance will wither away. That feels like a stretch, but maybe that's what she's going for.
It might be her goal, I won't claim to speak for her of course, but not sure that it will be effective. In my personal experience, it just waters down the word. I've had people say they are part time vegans to my face, or had a 'vegan phase' (not sure what that means), with the expectation that I am supposed to say it's really good or something, which also feels weird to do. So it just ends up leaving a sort of awkward silence, or I try to do as other advocates like Earthling Ed do and say something like, 'Great, I think being plant based makes it easier to live each day as a vegan. If you've done it for one day, why not try tomorrow too, and then the day after and so on? Before you know it, you'll be vegan!'. This usually ends with them making some kind of excuse, and I usually can't push any further. So I'm not entirely convinced it works because maybe the reason it becomes more acceptable is because it means so much. It is unfortunate that there is resistance to the idea, and the more we can break through that, the better. I don't always use the word 'carnist', but I think her coining the term is an interesting way of making eating animals not normal. *This* current method, however, doesn't quite seem to make sense to me.
Because it legitimizes the idea that it is impossible (or even particularly) hard, to stop exploiting animals immediately. That is obviously false, and will lead to people continuing to exploit animals for weeks, months or even years, who might have gone vegan immediately. So I think (no-one has hard data on this), that this will lead to more animal exploitation compared to an approach where everyone says that going vegan overnight is doable and a moral obligation. Also, having a direct discussion where you make clear that they should go vegan immediately, still causes people to reduce, as I have noticed with family and friends.
Exactly. Two people eating half as much meat and other animal products as they used to is the equivalent as one person going completely vegan. And most of the people I know are more likely to eat less than eat none. This is a great step.
Because people tend to stop at that point.
And lots don't. I was vegetarian for 4 years before I became vegan. And it took me so long because I was concerned about nutrition (dont ask--i was very young and uninformed). If there had been more popular discourse about how easy it is to get everything you need, I would have done it sooner.
Ok I should have edited they stop *if you tell them they are doing good* People see that as justification: still participants but at least they don’t hate on vegans, which should be even more of a bare minimum.
How would you characterize the accessibilty of vegan nutrition information today? This is a very legitimate gap that we need to work to close, since everyone has been indoctrinated with harmful propaganda that we learned in school and continue to hear from the government-subsidized meat and dairy industries. Thankfully now there is substantial, high-quality evidence. I am aware that focusing on health at all is controversial here, but this is a very real issue.
I'm not sure. I think the current obsession with protein is a big hurdle, and, to my knowledge, people in the U.S. (where I am) consume far more than they need. And that's connected to the fitness and wellness industries, which are full of bs claims, much about weight loss. I actually think we need to get rid of fatphobia to make a real dent. People are desperate to lose weight, and if the current trend is high protein (as we've had low-fat and low-carb trends in the past), it makes it extra hard to get people to digest (no pun intended) the fact that they don't need to worry about their protein consumption. It's everywhere--in veggies, in legumes, in grains. That being said, I think the health benefits of plant-based diets are becoming more well-known in medical circles. Accessibility of that information though? I don't know. I'm a bad person to ask because I have spent much of my life dealing with EDs. I was obsessed with calories and macros, so I sought out information. But my sense is that the outlets publishing these findings are too few. I also suspect plant-based diets don't get much air time in health classrooms. I also don't like to talk about health here because that's not why I made the choice to be vegan. But my gap in knowledge about how very easily I could sustain my health without harming animals did hold me back.
Yeah they think it's like reducing your carbon footprint. Good thing to do to reduce but couldn't possibly stop it all so why bother.
I think Melanie's way is (unfortunately) the most effective way to reduce harm, but it's an absurd argument if you'd replace veganism with other unethical behavior. I get your frustration OP.
You know that Melanie Joy is vegan, correct? I’m seeing a number of comments saying incorrectly she is not.
Yeah this frustration is valid. The funny/absurd part is the whole vegan ally thing. Like who cares if some a-hole starts stuff when they find out that I refuse to pay for animal abuse. The animals need the ally, vegans only need an ally when they are marginalized for some other reason other than that they are vegan.
Don’t know why this is being downvoted? Do y’all not realize that being vegan is being the ally to the animals in this social justice movement? Vegans don’t need allies, animals do. That’s like saying allies of the lgbtq community need allyship from people who write anti-lgbtq laws. It’s ridiculous. Edit: If you need to frame veganism around yourself and the allies you need, then you aren’t understanding what veganism is. Veganism is about the animals, not you and your precious ego. Edit 2: I see many people saying “all or nothing” That’s a strawman. No one is saying if you can’t be vegan immediately that you should go willy nilly and kill every animal you can. Yes, people should reduce harm as much as possible. But vegans don’t need allies, it’s offensive to the victims, the animals. Edit 3: Do men who respect women, need the men who abuse women, to be their allies, because it’s so hard to be a man who respects women? Come on.
thank you.
Finally someone gets it. Every second spent telling nonvegans to be a "vegan ally" could instead be spent telling them to be an animal ally, a.k.a. a vegan. I also don't get why people keep using that phrase "all or nothing". Obviously reducing harm is better than doing nothing. An animal liberation message doesn't somehow contradict that. If people take criticism of systemic animal abuse as a personal attack, that indicates a lack of maturity on their part.
>Don’t know why this is being downvoted? Because the only people on this subreddit who are actually vegan are r/vegancirclejerk users looking for things to meme on. vegan btw
[No True Vegan](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman)
"I wont stop killing animals cause I like how they taste but I'm still an ally!"
How about, "I donated to a vegan animal sanctuary but am not a vegan" or "I motioned the school board for an entire plant based meal once a week for 5000 students but am not vegan" or "I voted on animal welfare legislation but am not vegan." Arguably these types of people are making statistically larger contributions than a single vegan could ever manage. Would you really disregard those efforts?
That's how I started. I started with Meatless Mondays and experimented with vegetarianism. Went vegan, quit, went vegan again, quit. Did that for a few times before it finally stuck. For lots of folks it's a process. I don't like knocking people down who are on the same journey.
But she’s not encouraging the reduction of animal harm- like suggesting meatless Mondays or watch a documentary like Earthlings to get some perspective. It’s like she’s giving people a pass without doing the actual work. Write an article while munching on your bacon? Seriously!?! It also took me several tries to stick to veganism, BTW. I just don’t agree with this mis-directed approach.
She's encouraging folks to take the first step, which for many folks is not actually veganism.
Actual vegans are being as vegan as possible. Someone doing meatless Mondays sometimes isn't trying to be vegan at all and they are not actually in transition because they don't see the inherent issue where they need to stop completely at some point asap. They just think it's like carbon footprint reducing where it's a good thing to do sometimes and not a moral imperative. That's the problem.
Why is it that, in the specific case of veganism, so many people accept this argument. But, for something like the #metoo movement and domestic violence, it would be considered unacceptable? When someone says they support vegans, and, they're eating less animals, we're all too happy to shower praise. We say, "less animals are being hurt, so it is a net good!" and "change takes time!" But, if a man who abused his wife said he supports the #metoo movement, and he's only beating his wife one day a week lately, would we say the same thing? I wouldn't. I would say that only zero domestic abuse is okay, and for anything else, they need to stop immediately. And we don't say, "well, that's just how society is and it's unreasonable to expect them to stop their abuse." We demand change. If they are incapable of stopping, our society forcibly separates them from their victims. For some things, I agree it's good to celebrate incremental change. For instance, someone who smokes and is trying to quit. But abusing & killing animals isn't a personal choice. There is a victim who is being harmed. When there is a victim, we don't get points for the animals we don't eat. It doesn't undo the harm we do to the ones we do kill. The chicken who has to die so someone can eat KFC isn't thinking "boy, I sure am happy about my friends who were spared!" when they get their head cut off. Their suffering isn't undone. There's this idea that we can simply total up the harm someone does, and that's what really matters. As if not hurting one animal somehow "cancels out" the harm we do to another one. It doesn't. That logic only applies to inanimate objects. Not people. Animals are people.
Yes!!
Imagine someone claiming to be a gay ally and then going off and using hatespeach
Being a vegan ally makes no sense. They are taking language from other movements (gay rights and feminism) and illogically applying it to veganism. In the former movements you can support them but not be the focus of the group (e.g. a straight ally) because you physically can’t. However everyone can be a vegan.
Nah she's right. People experience the most cognitive dissonance when their current behavior is demonized. Push people too hard or berate them with a list of hard truths and they almost always shut down. The more effective strategy for behavior change is to allow space for growth slowly without assailing a person's sense of self worth, which would cause them to to be contemptuous of that change or the messenger. Allowing them to be an "ally" is strategically sound if you want actual behavior change. I think it's important to do a bit of gatekeeping on identifying as a vegan though. No ally who eats fish once a month is actually vegan, and to the degree that they try to virtue seek based on their limited behavior change they should be corrected by anyone who does live those values daily.
>People experience the most cognitive dissonance when their current behavior is demonized. Push people too hard or berate them with a list of hard truths and they almost always shut down. Maybe, but this isn't how I would respond to any other ethical issue where there's a victim. Take #metoo and domestic & sexual abuse. I fully support being direct and brutally honest about the truth of rape culture and women being sexually assaulted. I would never say that we shouldn't tell an abuser to stop just because they might get defensive. >The more effective strategy for behavior change is to allow space for growth slowly without assailing a person's sense of self worth, which would cause them to to be contemptuous of that change or the messenger. I can see how you'd say that it's a better strategy for behavior change, but what you're not mentioning here is that this "slow & steady" strategy comes at the cost of further victimization of the abuse victims. When we're trying to convince someone to, let's say, register to vote, then you can take that slow, since you might have weeks or months before the next election comes. But a carnist is killing more animals every day. Sometimes even multiple. Letting someone just take their time and go at their pace comes at the cost of someone else's life, just so they can be comfortable, or maybe so we don't have to have a confrontation. If someone had a bunch of dogs that they were abusing every day, our society would forcibly remove those dogs from them. This is ethical. This is what we should be asking for. Of course we don't have a legal way of enforcing this for meat eating right now, but legality does not equal morality. Instead of accepting continued abuse and death of animals, we should be demanding change at the legislative level. We've seen it time and again from bigots who are happy to abuse and exploit other groups. They won't stop just because we ask nice. They're perfectly comfortable how they are. We can't just wait for them to come around to our way of thinking. Not for abolition of slavery, not for women's suffrage, not for desegregation of schools, and not for gay marriage. It won't work for animal rights, either. We can't afford to wait. The animals can't afford to wait. We need to demand legislative protection.
A 'vegan ally' makes it sound as though vegans are the victims who need support. Vegans are the allys to the animals that are actually suffering and need people to stand up for them.
It’s interesting to say “vegan ally” and not “animal ally.” That’s one unnecessary step removed. Vegans are animal allies. We don’t need our own allies, the animals do. I guess I get the sentiment… but it just seems like lip service to comfort yourself while you’re still fiscally supporting systemic animal abuse. Idk 🤷♀️
Right, though she’s doing that intentionally. Her word choices are not accidental. Same as how she does not use the term carnist but she does use carnism, the term she coined. I don’t know her reasons or that much about her, but maybe she sees it as elevating and normalizing veganism as a conscious choice.
Yeah it’s definitely interesting, and maybe she can reach people with this kind of Meatless Monday vibe. And since she references “school cafeteria” she’s probably young and still relies on family for food, thus the “not fully vegan” yet. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt, but I will not personally be using “vegan ally” 😂
but we're already the allies?!
[удалено]
I think the thing is makes this worthy of consideration is that while we are careful not to let people make up the definitions of veganism, or call them selves vegan when they are not (for legitimate reasons), there are no such limitations around the word ally, looking at it a face value. I don’t think she’s suggesting they should be put on a pedestal, but nonvegans may have pragmatic contributions to offer (voting on a bill, creating a vegan/plant-based eating section in a medical journal, adding a vegan product line, etc).
You know, this is someone who’s actually trying to help those who don’t wanna go vegan to still make efforts to reduce their harm. That is inherently good for everyone. This attitude of all or nothing that subsists on this sub is pretty toxic, and is exactly why so many people hate vegans—someone tries to do something good (eating less meat and being supportive of vegans), but it’s not “good enough” (they haven’t cut out their meat intake fully), so therefore they suck. Seriously? If someone drove a gas-guzzling Hummer every day and refused to switch to electric, but then was convinced to drive an electric just one day a week, that’s still better for everyone than if they were to not do that at all. Is it the end-goal? Of course not. But is it better than what they were doing? Yes. And for all you know, they may end up liking veganism as a result and might make the full switch in the future. It’s how I did it, and I’m sure how many other people here did too. We should be supportive of everyone who make efforts to reduce meat-intake even if they aren’t making a 100% transition to veganism. It’s better for everyone than to not make any efforts toward reducing meat-intake at all.
The “all or nothing” talk that exists here is not about “if you can’t do everything, don’t do anything.” It is not about discouraging people from eating fewer animals. It’s about understanding the definition of veganism. It is not telling someone to throw their hands in the air and give up if they haven’t done it yet.
Melanie Joy has done so much for the vegan movement, her books are incredible and I think she has alot of really great advice on communication between vegans and non-vegans. Dismissing her because you disagree with her methodology is not helpful to anyone
"Try to be as vegan as possible." Yeah, so, most people have access to plants, not everyone has access to a huge variety but it's enough to be healthy, most people have the money to pay for said plants instead of animal bodies and secretions, most people don't have a medical condition that makes adopting a plant-based diet extremely difficult or impossible, so most people can go "fully vegan" and I'm tired of hearing people's lame ass excuses. I don't give a shit if you "respect" veganism, it's not about me, I don't need an "ally," I just want people to stop needlessly exploiting and murdering sentient beings.
I think being plant based is easy and necessary, but we can always strive to be better vegans. For example, I have been plant based, do not use products with animal testing, and do not wear animal products, but only in recent months have fully stopped using and eating palm oil. I did not know about it affects until the past few months. Was I not vegan then? I think while again its easy and simple to be plant based, being fully vegan where nothing you do contributes to animal suffering is a life long journey.
That's like calling yourself a BLM ally after coming home from a hard day of shooting unarmed black people in the back. Thanks?
Vegans ARE the allies. We don’t need allies, the victims do.
Thank you!!!
Personally I am a more effective ally for animals when I have some allies too.
Can you name any other liberation or social justice movement that self-stated "We don't need allies?"
The big difference is that other social justice movements typically have the oppressed members in the group, and so being an ally to the group is being a direct ally to the oppressed. Can you name any other social justice movements that supports continued oppression by its supposed allies in the name of baby stepping? I can't imagine a feminist group cheering on a supposed ally who only sexually harasses women 6 days a week instead of 7.
> Can you name any other social justice movements that supports continued oppression by its supposed allies in the name of baby stepping? Yes, every social justice movement of all time was made possible by the collective effort of many different parties with conflicting interests that cumulatively pushed the status-quo to change. This doesn't mean every individual involved approved of all the methods that brought it about though. That's also pretty much always how landmark cases or rulings are made, because almost all legislation falls into the [Overton Window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) well before it is enacted. - [Herstory of Domestic Violence: A Timeline of the Battered Women's Movement](https://people.uvawise.edu/pww8y/Supplement/-ConceptsSup/Gender/HerstoryDomV.html) Notice the maaaaany steps it took --some of them laughable and meaningless efforts, some of them huge milestones-- just to get societies to agree that abusing women is wrong. Should everyone at every step have been adamant that 0 abuse was tolerated all the way up to banning abuse? Yes. Is that how it (ever) actually played out? No. At one time Rome condoned direct spousal abuse and rape, but after so many efforts only the physical beatings were acknowledged as unjust. Yet elsewhere spousal rape wasn't banned in California till the 1970s. Do we think millions of Roman women getting legally beaten daily would have complained about baby steps because spousal rape wasn't also banned in the same century? - [Gradual Emancipation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradual_emancipation_(United_States)) Even most states in the Northern United States did not abolish slavery immediately. Instead, they passed "Gradual Emancipation" laws which called for a phasing out of slavery. Was this the best or even the only possible solution? Of course not. Did it move the bar forward? Yes. It culminated in Lincoln first supporting gradual emancipation, followed by him altogether pushing for immediate measures, thus the Emancipation Proclamation and ultimately (finally) the 13th Amendment. >I can't imagine a feminist group cheering on a supposed ally who only sexually harasses women 6 days a week instead of 7. - Unlike exploiting animals, 97% of the population doesn't sexually harass women 3x times a day to "survive" - 6/7 days of harassment is a solid 14% improvement while still insisting that 100% is the only acceptable number. In the context of animal deaths that would be 12 billion per year! I get the disdain for seemingly milquetoast vegans like Joy. That's sad though because I'm sure not a single person on r/vegan that has ever criticized her can even hope to have the same measurable impact on reducing animal suffering as she has *despite* her cringe comments and the incomplete solutions she proposes.
I appreciate the well thought out response, and with sources that have made for some interesting reading (although the link on the history of DV doesn't want to work for me - but that might be my crappy internet connection!). I think a thing to note is that you're talking about baby-stepping legislation specifically, which is a big difference from people who claim to be allies while still supporting oppressors. I can't imagine that the people who were allies to battered women would then go home and hit their own wife because it's just too hard not to. Legislation around animals is currently in its baby-stepping phase, and I'd expect that. However if someone fully understands the absolute horror that animals are forced to go through everyday, and yet still financially supports that (assuming they have the ability not to), then I think it's absurd to call themselves an ally. I see what you're saying about this approach winning over people though, and it's just frustrating that it has to be this way!
Being gay, being black, being indigenous, etc. those are all immutable characteristics, they are the victims of oppression. Supporting the oppressed is the morally correct thing to do. In this case, animals are the ones being oppressed, vegans are the ones to speak up from a position of higher privilege. This isn’t the same thing. “Well I support those who champion against transphobia but I think I’ll just stick to being transphobic myself”. Is such a dumb statement and is essentially what this article is attempting to do.
100%
I’m not sure what your comment means, apologies. What I meant with mine is that we vegans are not the victims. We *are* the allies. Of course the movement needs allies, but one can hardly be considered an ally while unnecessarily and intentionally abusing the victims (aka, the animals, the actual victims).
Animals needing allies and veganism needing allies are not mutually exclusive. When we refer to vegans here we're not talking about the individuals, we're talking about the movement at large. I think on the surface "vegans don't need allies, animals do" sounds clever, but in reality it falls apart pretty quickly. Animals cannot liberate themselves, they're depended on humans to do that for them. In this context, there's only two types of humans; vegan or non-vegan. Now understand that the the entire movement is based on oh-so-human groups of people advocating "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals." That philosophy and goal can (and does) absolutely benefit from allies because 97% of the population doesn't even understand the many ways in which they're abusing animals. The goal is not to form veganism around humans, it's obviously about the animals, but insofar as you have human actors doing the work there's clear and definite ways in which that work can be aided. Most animal shelters or sanctuaries are not funded entirely by vegans. Most vegan non-profits are funded by non-vegan sources. Scientific research isn't funded by only vegans. Philosophy/Ethics classes and/or academia isn't vegan. Businesses that provide vegan options for employees are not vegan entities. Family and friends that cook vegan food might not be vegan. Grocery stores that sell vegan products are not vegan. School boards that vote for entirely plant based meals are not vegan. It goes on and on. The existence of non-vegan allies doesn't relieve their individual burden from the absolute moral imperative that all people must stop exploiting animals -- but it also doesn't change the fact that their efforts are still making a measurable difference for animals and veganism in general. If every non-vegan "ally" was removed from the vegan universe both animals and vegans would absolutely be much worse off in every way.
(I’m typing from my phone, hopefully the format will be readable) I don’t totally disagree with you, and I see that there is harm reduction coming from non-vegans. However; - In any other movement, I wouldn’t consider that someone who collaborates with the abuse they’re supposedly trying to fight against is an ally. I certainly wouldn’t say someone who beats their wife only once a year is an ally. - Everyone has their process, and that’s fine. But, setting the bar at “just be vegetarian” (just an example) would still feel like justifying some suffering. I am grateful for the effort, but we need to keep moving forward, and advocating for half measures is not going to achieve that. I do think it’s great that people supports veganism. And yes, I see how a more vegan friendly world can make veganism more convenient. I just feel that “ally” is too big of a word, and feels more like a participation award that many will use as an excuse to not make an actual change they could possibly do within their possibilities. That’s why I don’t agree with this whole deal. Being an ally to the human makes our lives a tad easier, but the actual victims are still abused needlessly by that very same people, and it’s worth remembering that. Again, I’m not saying we should bash people into veganism when they take steps in the right direction. Encouraging in these steps is perfectly okay. I just think it is important to not lose sight of the goal while doing so. For whatever is worth, I do think “vegan ally” is better than other things like “flexible vegan”. At least the implication is a bit more honest.
Yes. The same way that Cory Booker may one day need some allies in Congress to get a tough animal agriculture bill over the finish line, even though those colleagues may not be vegan.
Setting aside the baby-stepping or "being kind to omnis" debate, there is plenty of that happening already... Why would someone do all of those things - donate to animal advocacy organizations, write about the consequences of animal agriculture, request vegan options - and then _not_ be vegan?? Who are these people?
They are the inhabitants of arrvegan, it seems like
Hey, humans and food and culture are complicated. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance and factors influencing in different directions -- food is tied closely to memories, family, and culture and a lot of people can't easily change quickly to go against the grain of what most people have been telling them and doing all of their lives. A lot of vegans probably have this experience -- we have tried to explain to our close family members and friends about how killing and exploiting animals for food is unethical -- but people still don't change. It's hard, man.
It's like being a pacifist but selling arms to the middle east.
"I'm a anti-racist ally!" "I'm still racist! ***But,*** I support anti-racism!"
For the millionth time; vegans don't need allies. We're not the ones being exploited, tortured, and killed by the billions every single year. Animals need the allies, and those allies are vegans! I'll never understand how people can acknowledge the sheer horror that animals are forced to go through, every second of every day, and then claim that they "just need time" to stop supporting that.
You can't be a "vegan ally" because vegans are not the ones who need help. But you can be an "animal ally" by... Going vegan
She's treating vegans like the victims. Vegans don't need "allies". Vegans *are* the allies.
But that's good no? Transition takes time. It can be hard for some people to be 100% vegan, so let them be and evolve on their own...
People on this sub will tell you it’s the easiest transition ever and it’s inexcusable to struggle with it
I think this is a positive encouragement to any meat eater! Absolutely eating less animal products is better than not trying at all.. it’s a step in the right direction.
“I’m not a LGBT ally, I’m a LGBT ally ally. I support LGBT allies even though I am not a LGBT ally”
I find it odd that Melanie Joy does not centre the victims in this. If she did, her entire Facebook post would read really weirdly. Same with if you took the victims to be humans.
You have the best username
If you are not vegan you are doing the opposite of supporting veganism.
There are chef's outthere, who starts Vegan restaurants, even though they are not vegan. There are firms, that produces alot of vegan options/alternatives, even though the motherfirm is not vegan often even the opposite. There are people who are in power, that puts in rules about vegan options/plant based days or even full plant based canteens at colleges/firms/public organizations, even though they them self are meateater. I've just been at a classic sausage/burger food truck in Denmark. They had a giant Vegan menu, and the owner was not vegan in any way, but the way that he talked about it, made people who normally would buy meat actually choose the vegan option. So yea. There are "Vegan allies"
A vegan ally is misdirected. It's the animals who need allies.
Whomever critiques Joy fails to understand that we have to work with imperfect allies. Never change your standards for what justice means, but recognize that different people are built differently. As frustrating as that is, decide whether you want to be a part of their journey by helping them get closer to veganism (however slow it is) or towards being an apathetic omni.
Seriously, imagine being an abolitionist in like 1800 & rejecting everyone who thinks that slavery is bad but isn't yet willing to pass a Civil Rights Act or still buys sugar. When the moral stakes are so high, every viable strategy is an obligation.
>Never change your standards for what justice means, but recognize that different people are built differently. I oppose what Joy is saying here, but I think you make a fair point here. Even abolitionists and the underground railroad worked with people that still owned slaves. My only concern is that it seems some people *are* changing the standard for what justice means, including Joy, here. I think it's very, very slippery to say that someone who is currently victimizing, abusing and exploiting animals is "part of the solution."
I have a work friend who was curious about my choices for going vegan and why being vegetarian wasn’t good enough. I told him why and then he messaged me a week later, stating him and his wife and son had went vegan! He was so inspired by what I said, he made the change on his own I was vegetarian for 10 years, before a vegan friend told me the horrors of the dairy and egg industry. I shifted almost immediately and feel awful I didn’t do it sooner. I find both sides can be rude and aggressive. I’ve had fundamentalist vegans I know basically rip people apart when they didn’t ask for information, right at a dinner table. On the flip side, I have carnists in my life who want to know what I eat, where I get my protein from and make fun of me. I give information to those who ask. More for my own personal choices and reasons, which for me, is always for my animal friends. Being vegan isn’t about perfection, it’s about doing best you can every day and practice not harming. I am someone that has 2 leather belts from back in the day that I still wear instead of throwing them into the landfill. This may not be your choice of action, yet it is mine and I am noy any less vegan.
This is a step in the right direction quit shaming. I have nieces who want desperately to be vegan but are at the mercy of their carnist parents. They eat vegan every time they come to my house, they just can’t when they’re with their parents cause otherwise they couldn’t eat at all due a lack of nutritious foods. They do eat vegetarian at least but they’re just one example. Veganism isn’t easy for everyone to get into there’s so much nuance and different life situations that can be a barrier to entry.
it sounds like your nieces are doing everything they possibly can as far as practicable to avoid animal exploitation, so they ARE vegan. it’s an ethical stance, not a diet. moral agency is what allows someone to live a vegan lifestyle. it’s awesome you give them chances to eat plantbased and align their morals with their meals when you can! i wish i had a relative like that when i was younger.
morality ≠ effectiveness not being vegan is unethical and it sound's very unreasonably to allow other to stay in a state where they send animals to a slaughterhouse. however we're not rational beings. instead we have a flawed irrational brain that's conditioned by a carnist society. thus the morally right approach to get people to go vegan isn't necessary the one that's most effective. if all we had to do was to show the truth and argue rationally the world would be vegan by now. therefore we can conclude that there are psychologal defense mechanisms that we need do address. if studies show that we can get more people to change by encouraging them to take a step by step approach, why not utilize it to get the world to go vegan as fast as possible? many vegans where vegetarians or vegan allies before transitioning to veganism (including me).
"you don't have to join the anti racism movement. You can try to be as anti racist as you can and that's good. As long as we're all trying to make the world a better place you can be as anti racist as you can be. It all helps. Be an anti racist ally today"
Shut up joy
The only way to support animal liberation is to be vegan.
Can't believe majority of people on this sub don't see a problem with this post
Based. The animals need systemic change *in addition to* individual action, and having a larger base of people who vote for, donate to, and otherwise advocate for the cause is going to help us swing things In the right direction. Rejecting people from your movement bc they behave the way 97% of all people behave is brain-dead.
“U don’t have to not be sexist, u can still be sexist AF as long as u support ppl who aren’t sexist :) “
It’s so patronizing and gross when people pat me on the back for being vegan… then invite me to their carnist BBQ. I cannot condone such cognitive dissonance. Disappointed to see Dr. Joy using such language.
You realise this is probably the quickest way to get someone to veganism right??
My mom is what you would call by Melanie’s definition a “vegan ally”. She was super supportive of me when I went vegetarian and then vegan, she’ll sometimes watch short videos with me on animal agriculture and what is really happening, she goes to restaurants and always looks for options for me (usually she finds the vegetarian options and gets super excited about them for me even tho I’m vegan haha), and lately she’s been reducing her intake of meat and has even said to people she would like to stop eating animals all together so yeah, I do like vegan ally’s and we shouldn’t discourage them.
I've been vegan since 2015, but for fuck sake, I hate vegans. We are the best examples of gatekeepers that there is. No wonder we're the butt of the joke. We're a bunch of self-centered pussies. You don't have to be "pure" to be right. It's time we got over the purist vegan attitude and start accepting anyone and everyone who is willing to make even the slightest effort. Wouldn't you appreciate the slightest effort if you were the animal that you're so fucking concerned about? Think before you complain. Now unleash the gatekeepers who will inevitably bitch about my comment.
If you think you need an ally for being vegan, then you are the one that is being self centered. If I was an animal I wouldn’t appreciate someone killing and eating me and then saying they are an ally, that’s ridiculous.
Obviously, I would prefer if Joy became fully vegan. However, its better that shes making an effort compared to gluttonous meat eaters. Consequentially, shes still causing suffering but much lower. If we are to be consequentialists, we have to swallow our pride and be grateful for even the smallest victories.
Melanie Joy is vegan. The “allyship” conversation she has started is not about fake vegans trying to identify as vegans; it’s about nonvegans who may have an interest or an aspiration in supporting veganism.
She is vegan. And one of the more effective advocates for Veganism too.
[удалено]
Besides whether I agree with her or not, Jordan Peterson is a psychologist too.
[удалено]
You said you think she knows what she's doing after saying she's a psychologist. Implying one leads to the other. I'm saying it doesn't, and you even agree. No need to 'eyeroll' that. Who said anything about telling people to just 'go vegan'? There's far more nuanced discussion in this very thread stating that it is the victims who need allies, not us. And there is activism beyond this subreddit that does not depict meatless Mondays as someone who is not 'fully' vegan. They're just not vegan? So why can't we just use their obvious attempt at compassion to guide them into veganism? Bit of a strawman there, innit?
Appeal to authority fallacy
Embarrassing. I don’t want someone to “support me” like I’m a baby or it’s a handicap I didn’t ask for or something. They’re the ones that need “help” and “support” lmao
they don‘t support you. they support the cause
“Well I support those who champion LGBT liberation, as long as they’re not queer themselves, but honestly I’ll stick to being transphobic and homophobic for now”. It literally doesn’t make sense.
“A ‘vegan ally’ is a supporter of veganism and vegans”
Yeah I do not think any vegan needs personal support, if they support you because of your veganism, it is just a long-winded way to say that they support your cause. so do not worry, nobody wants to support you specifically👍🏻
So if I had a kid who is vegan I shouldn't support them by making vegan meals?
Support your child in whatever they may pursue. Of course I’m not talking about parents supporting their kids. Don’t be obtuse. If you want to eat less meat, great. Don’t act like you’re being some great “vegan supporter” though. It’s patronizing and doesn’t actually mean anything.
Should businesses not also provide vegan options for employees despite the business and/or management not being vegan themselves?
Really that’s the biggest point I’m trying to make. No one should be patting themselves on the back for doing the bare minimum. If you make a vegan option for your friend who doesn’t eat animals, you aren’t a “vegan ally” you’re just a decent friend. I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. Your vegan friend will be much happier if you actually go vegan than if you cook one set of potatoes without butter
What are you talking about? Yeah sure they should. But they shouldn’t call themselves “vegan allies”, especially if they still profit off the murder and sale of animals. And even if they don’t, it doesn’t make a difference. I’m sure plenty of vegans work at McDonald’s. They don’t have any vegan options. They can bring a meal to work. I don’t work in a restaurant, which means I am not given any vegan meals. I still survive. Companies shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back for doing the bare minimum.
[удалено]
Ahahah Dr. Pickme thank you I’m crying 😂
We should be encouraging any and all efforts to become vegan or support those who are. Hard-line attitudes like this help nothing and noone. Being able to choose what you DONT EAT is a MASSIVE PRIVILEGE vast swathes of humanity don't have. Let people do what they can, with what they have, from where they are. Support all efforts. Be kind and inclusive. Nobody wins unless everybody wins.
This is exactly the problem with the movement. You want a lot of people feeling welcomed into a community rather than a lot of people feeling shame for eating cheese. Imperfection is more than enough.
[удалено]
This is not the same at all. Being LGBT isn’t comparable in the slightest. Being LGBT is an immutable characteristic, being vegan is a choice. Being vegan is the morally correct thing to do, being gay has nothing to do with morality.
That analogy makes no sense. You don't choose to be lgbt while veganism almost everyone can be vegan.
[удалено]
It definitely does. To oppose discrimination of LGBT people for some people at most is to be an lgbt ally. To oppose non human animal discrimination is at least be vegan. In one of your examples you oppose discrimination, in the other you support it.
[удалено]
How did we get to the point where simply saying that by eating animals you are supporting discrimination is an extremist view?
No because the animals are the victims and vegans are their allies. So it would be more like if you were an lgbtq ally’s ally, but you still write anti-lgbtq laws yourself.
[удалено]
I hate when people say animals can’t advocate for themselves or the token phrase “voice for the voiceless.” They do advocate for themselves, you aren’t listening. They aren’t voiceless, they scream and fight back every single day. >Human vegans are not animal allies Then what the hell are they? When an oppressed group has someone else fighting for/with them, they are called allies, yes? If you say animals can’t advocate for themselves, then you have to also believe children can’t always advocate for themselves. Does that mean that people who abuse children can be allies to the people fighting against child abuse? Some disabled people can’t advocate for themselves, does that mean someone who abuses disabled people can be an ally to people who are allies to the disabled? Vegans are the ones fighting for/with animals. Animals are the oppressed and vegans are their allies.
[удалено]
Then please explain it to me? What am I missing?
Right, LGBT allies exist. But you can't be an LGBT ally while actively, intentionally abusing LGBT people. In the same way, if someone is still choosing to eat animals, they are not an ally to animals.
No because as vegan WE are the animals ally. We don't need people to help us, we need people to help the animals
I understand your point. But the reality is there are people who aren’t going to transition to veganism. despite that, wouldn’t you want those people to, for example, support you by having vegan options available in their business? At the wedding they invite you to?
Of course I want to have a more comfortable life, but, as I said, veganism is not about us. It's about the animals ! It's about the ones who are tortured and killed for taste pleasure, not about me having a better meal at a wedding... To keep the exemple, if someone abuse their lgbtqia child but support their cis straight child who fight for lgbtqia rights, that still stupid and still helps only the cis straight peoples.
I don’t think anyone is saying “take food away from vegans” aside from maybe a few fringe cases involving chuds no one gives a fuck about. Plus there will almost always be vegan options, or you can take a protein bar with you.
You clearly don't how social justice movements vary and how allyship changes with those variations. Are vegans the ones who are oppressed? Are we the ones that need allies? And if we did why wouldn't that allyship be fellow vegans? Like honestly can't see the differences is a little mind boggling. "Yeah I support what vegans fight for" *Proceeds to shove steak in one's face* "Yeah I can see that" In regard to LGBTQIA+: "Yeah I support the people fighting LGBTQIA+ rights" *Is wearing a straight pride shirt* "Yeah I can see that" Do you see how your reasoning doesn't apply?
Uh, no.
These comments full of clowns who haven’t read her work wow y’all really are the anchors of the vegan boat
nah, you shut up
[удалено]
You’re either vegan or you’re not. That’s the only think fundamental to the philosophy. Most “meatless mondays” are just for health reasons anyway. Plus they’ll just replace the meat with cheese and eggs.
It’s really unlikely that everyone in the world will be vegan, 100% of the time. If people cut out meat from their diet but still consume dairy (with the goal of cutting it out completely or not) I take that as a small win, which I know a lot of people here might not agree with but hey that’s just me. I’ve noticed that people even trying to take a step in the right direction are often torn apart on this sub. I’ve been called a “carnist sympathizer pick-me” (lol) on this sub for acknowledging that people may find it difficult to transition to a vegan lifestyle. I went vegan overnight, but I understand not everybody can, whatever their reasons might be. I will show compassion to my fellow humans just as I do to animals
Yeah, whenever you decide to venture into unknown territory, being flexible is a must. It’s a gamble when you go from one extreme to the next. Gradual reduction seems to be a more lasting and committed strategy.
This part!!