this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
41 points (82.5% liked)

vegan

6920 readers
12 users here now

:vegan-liberation:

Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.

Rules

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:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Veganism seems to fall so obviously out of leftist beliefs, there are definitely other ways to get there but even if you are a speciest animal ag is so wantonly destructive, intensive, exploitative, colonial, and abusive to human workers not being against it is a big question mark.

I want to be charitable to people, I understand that deprogramming yourself can take a while, but when people have been aware that veganism is an option for months/years without taking any material steps... I dunno, are you just a treatlerite mad you don't have enough treats?

Has anyone had any real progress making other leftists they meet vegan? I've only managed to get three people to permanently adopt the philosophy in my life. None of those were particularly leftist, just justice sympathetic.

edit: I actually want to hear from other vegans in the vegan comm. Shocking I know.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

My wife used to be vegan but went carnist again before I met her so there was some understanding but after a few years of being together and having a kid i went rather abruptly vegan in the anti-speciesist sense (you know how it is with sharpening contradictions and quantitative changes) so now I feel like I have to be the conscience of the whole family. She has been trying her best as she says to replace or circumvent animal products and I believe her. The issue is that we do have to make compromises (like e.g. my medication has no vegan alternative) and she has been more willing to make compromises than me (like e.g. kids shoes are really bad for their feet except this one style of shoe that somehow only gets produced with leather. I would have said barefeet or the least bad of the terrible options but she was adamant). But being the conscience seems to work, I can be uncompromising in my stance in how it affects me, voice my opinion in how we raise our kid and every now and again this gives me the opportunity to point at some contadiction.

Like for example when my sons kindergarten went to an aquarium I would have liked to kept him home, but I had to go to university so my wife would have had to take care of him for the entire day, which she didn't feel like she could. So he went there and had a lovely time according to the teachers. Because the fallout of the decision would have fallen on her and not me, of course she had the last say.

But when they planned a trip to a zoo, I could stay home and even though my wife would have liked him to go, his teachers wanted him to go I made my position clear. Now the ball was in my wifes court and it opened up quite the discussion about veganism. Especially since this particular zoo has had human exhibits in the past, the question of "what if they were humans" wasn't such a big hypothetical. This forced my wife to actually spell out that she values humans over other animals because that's ultimately what is required to find the one ok but not the other. This gave me the opportunity to say why I do think the suffering of animals and humans are comparable and we left in a agree to disagree way and ultimately agreed that he wouldn't go but we would make it up to him with a trip to a swimming pool and a trip to an animal sanctuary that has exotic animals.

Then we had to tell the teachers and of course that opened up a dialogue and my wife now was on my side defending this decision, because we had made it together. So we talked about how we think the majority of the animals in the zoo have complex social structures, their own will, wants, needs and how the commodification of them to us is just an abhorrent thing that our son is too young to understand. He would just have a nice day in the zoo and have it normalized.

Then we had to explain it to our son, who just took it in a matter-of-fact way that the other kids are going and he isn't, because he is that small and my wife actually took charge and did a really great job explaining the why. So I don't know where she actually lands on the vegan spectrum currently. It could have radicalized her further but I don't wanna poke at it myself, lest she get defensive about it, but let the contradictions mount on their own. I think that's the best strategy really, have others defend their non-vegan choices when they have to, i. e. when they do something that affects you or something you have a say in, but don't force them in theoretical discussion. Facts and logic never convinced anyone.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey thanks, that's an interesting write up.

Facts and logic never convinced anyone

I feel like I'm the only person in the world who read a paper on zebra fish behaviour modification after apitoxin envenomation and looked up from it to say "Hey, zebra fish modify their behaviour in a way that suggests they are less optimistic about finding food after their lips are envenomed. I think we need to go vegan."

My wife, who is amazing, just agreed after I explained the paper.

I've honestly been quite shocked at how that paper hasn't worked on anyone else haha.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can you post a link to the paper?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Might have been this one: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=acwp_asie

There was another by the same group I think where they reverse the behaviour modifications by giving the fishies a shot of opiates, and then they stop hiding and rubbing their faces.

edit: I should add why I found this so morally concerning; it hints very strongly at an experience of pain, not just nociception. They don't just run from a bad stimulus, they nurse the site and become more cautious. Something which is hard to explain except if you suppose that like us they have some persistent emotional state which affects how they judge appropriate behaviours. Additionally rubbing, which is commonly observed in humans, indicates an attempt to sooth a spot after harm.

We were ovo pesco at the time and it just made me realise that if fish, which diverged from land animals how many millions of years ago, likely shared so much in the experience of pain including nursing behaviours and becoming more cautious then either these behaviours are highly convergent and frequently occuring or they are very old. Both hinting that consciousness might be extremely similar between living beings.

In other words, Nirvana lied and fish probably do have feelings and that is a horrifying realisation considering how they're treated. If fish, what new discovery would I wait for before pleading "how could I have known?" why not just take a proper and coherent stance against suffering and draw the line at the presence of a nervous system since it's very doable.

load more comments (1 replies)