• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 3rd, 2024

help-circle



  • Sure maybe they came off a bit snobby but I still don’t necessarily agree with your stance either - veganism isn’t “all about eating” - it’s a moral framework that rejects animal commodification - like my earlier example of not wearing leather or going to the zoo.

    This extends to all sort of stuff - having pets, keeping bees, sheering sheep, testing on animals, etc.

    Just as Islam is “more than diet choices,” veganism is far more than just a diet. The dairy farmer’s use of “vegan” would be like the pig farmer’s use of “Muslim” - both incorrectly reduce comprehensive philosophical/ethical frameworks to just their dietary components.

    But yeah w/e sometimes it’s easier to use the wrong term to convey an idea - which is why I still appreciate @jerkface@lemmy.ca’s effort to clarify that here so other people can learn as well.

    Tho I see we can continue this argument forever so I’m gonna dip out as I’ve got other stuff to get on with.


  • Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”

    “Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”

    So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?


  • I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.

    Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.

    In really simple terms:

    Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream:

    The first kid doesn’t eat ice cream because they really love cows and don’t want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also won’t wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they don’t want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.

    The second kid doesn’t eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and there’s no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and they’re fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).

    So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, they’re doing it for very different reasons. That’s what @jerkface@lemmy.ca was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.





  • This doesn’t need to turn into a pissing contest as I see you care about the Palestinian cause.

    I too have spent countless hours protesting on the ground, being threatened and followed by police, helping comrades deal with the abysmal legal system and some other things I don’t feel comfortable admitting on a public forum - but I don’t see this as justification to blame others for the voting choices they’ve made - I’ve used my privilege to help as much as I can - not because that allows me to “berate people on the internet for not caring as much” but because it’s the only thing that helps me sleep at night.

    I’m glad you’re involved in the cause - I just wanted to highlight how we should have class solidarity against the ruling class and not divide ourselves based on who’s not voted for whom as if that’s what makes it or breaks it.


  • I just want to preface this that as a trans person I totally understand your fears and agree they are completely valid - however I also want to make you aware of your relative privilege (being able to pack up and leave the US) - compared to almost all Palestinians that cannot do the same on top of also not being able to see their parents - not because of immigration but because they’ve been blown up by American bombs.

    I just want to point out that by blaming voters for not compromising on their values around human rights (instead of blaming the DNC for enabling genocide) - you’re showcasing that you personally care more about your child’s domestic rights being threatened than Palestinian children being killed - yes both are atrocious but I would hope that you can see how being killed right now should take precedence over likely (but avoidable) suffering down the line.

    Instead you’re saying that your daughter’s safety is more important than middle eastern children dying (which for you personally is valid) - but you can’t claim that everyone else should care about your child’s potential struggles in the future vs other’s children’s deaths right now.

    I just hope you will now become more understanding of the Palestinian struggle (as a refugee yourself) and will fight for the DNC to recognize both your rights and theirs as you now more viscerally understand how you’re both in the same boat.





  • So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of “assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)” - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?

    Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?

    Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?

    What’s gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?

    Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?

    EDIT: If you’re actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people’s right to self-determination.



  • Actually that’s a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it’s not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it’s there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.

    However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.

    People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that’s where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn’t work to alleviate this - as you can’t therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)

    Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.

    Hope this helps :)