It's funny to me because it reads like a satire of non-vegans, but this is literally how most of them are.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
45 points (95.9% liked)
vegan
6914 readers
91 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
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 inc/food. It's also a great place to share recipes.In all sections of the site, you must follow theHexbear.net Code of Conduct.
Resources
Animal liberation and direct action
- Animal Liberation Press (ALF)
- Wiki on Ethical Veganism
- Wiki on the Animal Liberation Front
- Wiki on Total Liberation
- Different approaches to AL direct action
- Earth First! manual and tactics
- Support prisoners of conscience: Vegan Prisoners Support Group (UK)
- If someone tells you to put some paint on your hands, tag some buildings and then go turn yourself into the police - your "rebellion" is a fucking op
Read theory, libs
- 18 Theses on Marxism and Animal Liberation
- Racism as Zoological Witchcraft: A Guide to Getting Out
- Animal Liberation
- The Death of Nature
- The Case for Animal Rights
- Anarchism and Animal Liberation
- Total Liberation
- The Unbearable Whiteness of Milk
- Speciesism as a Precondition to Justice
- Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation
- Citations Needed on media portrayals of animal rights activists
- The Jungle
Vegan 101 & FAQs
- Black Vegans Rock resources page
- Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach FAQs
- 30 Non-Vegan Excuses & How to Respond to Them
- Guide to justifications for harming and exploiting animals
- Your Vegan Fallacy Is
- The Radical Left’s Top 10 Objections to Veganism (And Why They Suck)
- Animal Liberation Front 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
never trust the words that come after "honestly" or before "but"
look at the big brain on that poster.. glad they put so much thought into it so we don't have to
Idealism vs. Materialism in a nutshell. "Plant rights" and "universal principle of non-use"
We have big tractors to plow or fields in the west but most of the world still gets their vegetables the old fashion way, animal labor.
Wait till this person learns about migrant labor in the USA and where their fucking vegetables came from. All carnists are idealists, veganism is the only actual science here.
That doesn't even get into the ideas around plant rights, plants are literally living thinking things so why is it okay to use them
I agree, agricultural practices should definitely be changed so that plants and the animals in their ecosystems are being treated ethically.
I don't know necessarily that a tree is actually sentient but if we seriously consider it, perhaps that might lead to better environmental conservation practices as a matter of ethics.
I don't know necessarily that a tree is actually sentient but if we seriously consider it, perhaps that might lead to better environmental conservation practices as a matter of ethics.
They most likely are not sentient, as we currently understand or can perceive, though the complexity of the networks formed within a forest might, might, allow for something like it in aggregate. Consciousness is deeply strange, for something that should be so familiar.
But as Angel says, here it's just a paralytic deflection. Like saying that eating plants is stealing from the animals that could eat them, therefore we're already sinners, therefore we might as well sin some more.
Plants aren't sentient, but regardless, this person bringing up "plant rights" is just a deflection. We could handle environmental issues far better if we get rid of the nightmare that is animal agriculture, as that is fucking up the planet more than anything else. Natural ecosystems would be better for both plants and animals because we'd be without the problem of clearing vast amounts of land to grow crops to feed animals who are also responsible for a shitload of carbon emissions.
I get that it's a deflection. I think the "universal principle of non-use" that other comrades mentioned is where I was actually headed with this reasoning but I didn't have the words for it. Is there any reading I can do about that?
The foundational writings of The Vegan Society by Leslie Cross don't take a long time to finish, and they get the point across extremely well I find.
While I don't disagree about animal farming being terrible, it's impact is significant but not the top of the list by any means. Energy production dwarfs all other polluters by a large margin. 75% of greenhouse gas emissions and tons of toxic pollution. Construction is next because of all the toxic byproducts. Transportation is also worse. Agri-industry accounts for around 15% of GHG with a lot of pollution generated from food packaging. After that it's the fashion industry. While there is definitely some room for reassessing the impacts due to methodology, it's a roughly accurate list.
Not trying to minimize, just contextualize.
This seems to be neglecting the fact that animal agriculture absolutely requires a ton of energy production. It's not just happening in a vacuum—it's tied to things that you mentioned like transportation and fossil fuel usage. Also, as far as the point about transportation goes, just to be clear, the "local meat is more environmentally friendly than a vegetable that is transported across the world" take is not true.
This table covers environmental impact of many factors.
The story's subtitle declares that transportation costs of shipping foods to consumers is not a significant factor compared to whether those foods are animal-based (a lot of CO2 emissions from land use, farming, animal feed) versus plant-based. "The distance our food travels to get to us actually accounts for less than 10 percent of most food products’ carbon footprint."
Here is an actual high quality version of the image.
Edit: I misinterpreted IncorrigibleDirigible's comment. My bad, G.
I was simply going by impact assessments of impact by industry types, obviously nothing happens in a vacuum. This is why I said there is room to reassess impacts. The stats that I was referring to try to take into account overall usage, pollution and other factors. Everything is linked in systems which is why it's difficult to get perfectly accurate pictures of things yet it IS possible to have a decent set of data to guide decision making on how to best course correct. Moving to renewables, building housing made to last generations instead of 20 years, public transportation powered by said renewables, reducing/eliminating meat consumption, growing locally, banning single use plastics etc.
I know the ethical and moral considerations are important. I agree with animal liberation entirely. I just take issue with presenting animal agriculture as THE single most damaging environmental practice, which it just isn't. Being factually accurate is important and misrepresenting the issue is harmful to the overall cause of environmental justice.
👍🏿
Plants aren’t sentient
that's actually fairly contentious, some researchers argue that they might be
though my answer to the "what if plants turn out to be sentient after all?" thing is i'll cross that bridge when and if we get to it
We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.
A few "experts" who arrive at their beliefs off of vibes rather than science may say they support the notion of plant sentience, but it's not taken seriously as a scientific idea.
Non-vegans also don't believe it. If anything, they just throw it out as a disingenuous excuse to alleviate guilt.
Something I ask non-vegans who say this stuff [NSFW]
If plants are to be sentient and that therefore makes exploiting animals for food and eating plants morally equivalent, would you consider using a cucumber as a sex toy to be morally equivalent to bestiality?
In every case, they dodge the question and act as if they don't understand the relevance.
the "experts" are botanists, they aren't like just random people and the idea has been published in scientific journals
and yeah, of course non-vegans are being disingenuous, that's what they do
Can you a cite a source, though? I've seen non-vegans cite sources and arrive at the wrong conclusions because they misinterpreted the sources. For example, they think that responding to stimuli is an indicator of sentience, but it's not. I feel like you are assuming far too much good-faith when it comes to this debate about plant sentience. Just because an idea is discussed and seems controversial doesn't actually mean that it's truly contentious with in a scientific context. Not all "debates" are genuine, and not all "controversies" are scientifically valid, and this is really just a "We have to validate both sides" kind of framing. Can you please demonstrate to me a single reputable botanical source that endorses plant sentience?