10
Right-wing vegan, an oxymoron?
(hexbear.net)
:vegan-liberation:
Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.
Rules
No plant-based diet bullshit or promotion of plant-based capitalism.
Veganism isn't about you, it's about historical materialist anti-speciesism, anti-racist animalization, and animal liberation. Ethical vegans only.No omni apologists or carnists.
Babystepping is for libs, and we're not here to pat you on the back. Good faith questions and debate about how to fight for animal liberation are allowed.No advocating violence to any species for any reason.
If you think this is negotiable GTFO. This includes but is not limited to animal testing, slaughter, and mass euthanasia. Anything that promotes speciesism or the commodification of animals will be removed.Use Content Warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content.
Especially if a comrade requests it.Questions about diet belong in
c/food. It's also a great place to share recipes.In all sections of the site, you must follow the
Hexbear.net Code of Conduct.Resources
Animal liberation and direct action
Read theory, libs
Vegan 101 & FAQs
If you have any great resources or theory you think belong in this sidebar, please message one of the comm's mods
Take B12. :vegan-edge:
Sorry, but I don't believe you.
I know a republican vegan. Started as a health thing but adopted more traditional reasons the further into it they got.
The real question should be is why aren’t more leftists automatically vegan?
Except that animals take up a lot of space for themselves and their food. And additionally animals give co2 and other harmful games into the air. So big difference between farming plants and farming animals.
Just say you can not be arsed to be a vegan, even though you know you should.
But that's not really how it works in practice, is it? We don't limit meat production to what can be produced as a byproduct of ecological management, or scavaged after an animal's natural death. The material conditions that actually exists are that there is a massive industry that's exploitative of humans and animals alike, and it's causing tons of needless cruelty and wanton ecological damage in order to provide people with meat.
Even if you limited yourself to only eating meat produced in the ways that you described (plenty of people will deploy this argument and then make no attempt to actually live up to the standards they put forth, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), would it not be better to sell the meat produced this way, so that some other carnist will eat that rather than meat produced from a factory farm?
This is an idealist argument. Just because you can engineer some hypothetical situation where eating meat doesn't cause harm doesn't mean that that hypothetical is relevant to the vast majority of cases that actually exist.