A lot of leftists are marxist-leninist, anti-sexist, LGBT+ and anti-racist. BUT, they’ll tell you the dumbest right-wing arguments to justify eating animals. I get that people aren’t ideal, but when you are the urban middle class of the West, there’s no excuse to not be vegan. Absolutely, no, excuse, to, murder, animals. Historical materialism lets me ok people from poor/oppressed backgrounds being carnist. I would never denounce a carnist in Gaza, but the Westerners have no any excuses to abuse animals.
I get that some people just have no will, I know people can be addicted. But at least DON’T BE A JERK to vegans. Some “leftists” post propaganda about veganism like YT videos that are literally funded by oil corporations. Some “leftists” are so toxic I’d rather have a conservative as my roommate than them.
The “leftists” lie all the time. Meat, dairy, eggs and honey are luxury products available mosty to those in the imperial core. The poor countries like India, Nigeria, Uganda and North Korea eat diets closest to veganism BECAUSE plant foods are the cheapest foods, not carnist subsidized McFood.
Dealing with leftists, especially online, is draining to me. How can I be productive as a leftist and not go insane? How can I cooperate with carnists to achieve the revolution? I see no easy solution here
Dear carnists in the replies who need to debate bro every point: I hope you all get early ED from the industrially murdered sentient animals that you don’t feel bad about hurting.
Edit: thank you mods for cleaning things up
Yeah, looks like I missed this one before the mods (who were clearly on point, thank you) removed the comments of the carnist losers and trolls. I will come right out and say it: if you’re a carnist in the core, you’re a shitty communist. In a similar way that one would be a shitty communist if they aren’t anti-imperialist. Or if they think patriarchy is just fine and not worth fighting. You have some self crit you need to do and you’re either not aware enough, brave enough, principled enough, or empathetic enough (and stfu if you’re about to say empathy is idealism, you’re just a vulgar pseudo-materialist) to be able to do that essential self crit.
For the record, I wouldn’t lump someone in as a carnist per se if they’re doing their best to reduce the amount of animal abuse they are responsible for. That’s an ongoing process (which is not to say an excuse to stop trying to continue to do better either). I’m mostly in agreement with Angel, who said it really well elsewhere in the thread. But if you’re coming in here whining about this completely valid post, then fuck right off. You’re a shitty communist.
Wishing erectile dysfunction on people is kinda cringe because it assumes that everyone who it’s wished on both (a) has a penis and (b) cares about its function
So if you were truly based you’d say “unlimited alpha gal syndrome on the carnists” with a picture of Qin Shi Huangdi throwing lone star ticks at assorted clipart of middle-aged men grilling hot dogs
Not disagreeing with you, but I just assume all debate bros are cis men. I like your suggestion, though.
I definitely think that being a cis man with the experiences that entails will make somebody significantly more prone to “debate bro” behavior — that much should be obvious — but it still feels like a bit much to assume that everyone who one would personally label as a “debate bro” is going to be a cis man (with this-like anatomy and this-like sexuality to boot). One’s own judgment can always be wrong, and when it is (napr. “oh, that wasn’t a debate bro, that was actually just an autistic trans woman”), then you will have run into a “black swan” that you’d rather stay away from, right?
I dunno, “debate bro” is one of those terms that often makes me sarcastically go, “oh, hahah, I get it, GENDER!”… It’s like, I get that the term is pointing to a broader trend or phenomenon that is 100% definitely tied to gender among other things, so I don’t mind the term “debate bro” being used in an abstract way; but when it starts getting applied to real specific people and unverifiable assumptions start getting made about those people, thennnnn the term feels way too close to comfort to a term that could be used to just shame people for being annoyingly persnickety and argumentative and opinionated and narrow-minded, regardless of the reasons why and regardless of potential biases. And when this is the case, the better terms to use might be, well, “persnickety” and “argumentative” and “opinionated” and “narrow-minded”, forgetting any and all unverifiable assumptions about why exactly this seems to be the referent’s character.
Honestly, this even goes for ostensibly gender-neutral forms of “debate bro”, like “debate perv”.