Preface: I know veganism is a broad ethical/justice stance against any animal exploitation that extends beyond food, but food is the most common way that humans contribute to the exploitation of nonhuman animals by far, usually 3 times a day or more - and it's something that they love to talk about and do as well. We could include buying clothes to a degree, but fewer clothes people buy are made from animals, and that topic doesn't seem to come up as much.

Do you avoid talking about, looking at, or being around food when with non-vegans (which is most people, meaning really any situation unless you're exclusively with people you know are vegan) because the reminder of what they're causing to happen to animals right in front of you and that most people don't share your views/actions on animals is too upsetting (possibly especially when it's people you know)?

Also because it can turn into an argument that you don't want, either because you feel obligated to briefly comment on it/state your opinion/certain facts if the subject specifically goes in that direction of veganism/animal cruelty (or feel like you should, but stop yourself for fear of rejection/conflict, which is itself painful) and then people get defensive & argumentative, or because other people bring it up and force the conversation on you and ask you questions about it that you don't know how to lie about or feel you have to be honest about, and then that leads to them getting angry and criticizing your views etc?

How do you avoid these situations? For example, it might be easier to do in digital formats, e.g. on Discord if I am in a server that has a food channel, I completely avoid the food channel or don't even give myself the "role" that would allow myself to see it. (Does anyone else do this? Seeing murdered corpses & exploited secretions of animals being glorified on full display is too triggering, especially when it's next to an "animal lovers" channel that is actually just "pet" lovers - dogs and cats that those people would feel the same horror at humans eating as we feel about all animals. That speciesist double standard/hypocrisy is also very distressing & maddening to be reminded of.) If people start talking about food in a general chat in any online space unrelated to food (it happens a lot) I typically just leave. For social media, there is always a way to just exit the space, platform, situation or turn off the device.

But how do you avoid this in real life? When you're in a social situation with people, you don't really have the ability to just leave if they're talking about or eating food.

I know some people take the Liberation Pledge (refusing to eat anywhere that animals and/or animal products are being served, and organizing fully plant-based [or alternatively at least animal flesh free] tables to eat at always). Usually this is done as more of a justice stance against animal exploitation as an extension of veganism, or as part of activism. But if I was going to do something like that, it would probably be largely to protect myself from the emotional anguish and stressful (often tense) situations that come about from being around people eating animals/animal secretions. However I don't know if it's effective for normalizing or getting across the message of not using animals (not that that is the focus of my post), or if it's practical to avoid all those situations from a personal point of view - it could be more isolating than I already feel. I don't want to ostracize myself from other people by not associating with them while they're involving themselves in discussions or activities related to animal exploitation, but at the same time I feel very disturbed about this and I know I feel more comfortable around other vegans - or when non-vegans aren't talking about those subjects at all.

Do you (vegans) personally avoid situations where food is being talked about or consumed when around non-vegans, or how do you deal with this from a mental health perspective?

P.S. Since there isn't an AskAVegan server on Lemmy that I know of, and the vegan community here is pretty small and often gets non-vegans commenting in it, I'm just specifying I'd rather only vegans reply to this if that's okay.

This has never happened to me before, but I was scrolling Uber Eats (even though I can't afford to get anything) and I saw a vegan Biscoff cheesecake and immediately smelled the sweet scent of Biscoff for a second. It wasn't like I just imagined how it smells like, I actually (at least mentally) "smelled" it as if it was there, and it made me consider if I was genuinely smelling something real (physically present) at the same time coincidentally but that makes no sense. The smell is very specific and I haven't had anything with Biscoff for quite a while and there is nothing around that would smell like it. I've never thought I had synesthesia (blending of senses/experiencing one sense as another) before but could this be a form of it?

I've read that olfactory response (smelling) sense memory is one of the strongest forms of sense memories, deeply ingrained in our subconscious. Smelling something familiar can trigger powerful memories and bring up emotions or even forgotten parts of your life. So maybe it can work in reverse as well, where seeing something familiar that you have a strong olfactory sense memory associated with (particularly a pleasurable one), maybe combined with taste memory (though it's notable I smelled it, not taste), could trigger such an intense reminder that it activates the actual memory of the smell as if it were really there?

Also, I may have partial anosmia (hyposmia), where I have difficulty smelling things, so that could play a role?

Hi, just wondering if fuggs are vegan. As in, do they contain products made from animals?

As far as I can tell, "fuggs" is a portmanteau of "fake" and "uggs", and so fuggs are "fake" uggs, meaning fake ugg boots. Uggs or ugg boots are a kind of boots traditionally made from sheepskin/shearling, and sometimes with suede leather (cow skin) on the outside.

But there's a bit of confusion about what "fuggs" or "fake uggs" means. Unlike something such as "faux fur" or "faux/fake leather", where it's pretty clear that will be vegan and not made from animals like the traditional kind is, "ugg" has some weird brand authenticity thing going on.

I might get some facts wrong here, but from what I could gather, there are 2 companies, called "UGG" (American brand) and "UGG Since 1974" (Australian brand) which both lay some kind of claim to what can be considered an authentic ugg boot. Uggs were first made in Australia, but I think the American UGG brand often sues other companies, including those in Australia, for using the "ugg" name. However in some places ugg simply means the style of shoe rather than the brand.

So unfortunately due to this, I think there might be 2 different meanings of "fuggs" - one I believe indeed means vegan ugg boots which don't use animal skins/products, while the other meaning is simply an ugg boot made in the traditional way from animals but just not by the "official" UGG brand.

In all this confusion, how can we truly answer the question of "Are fuggs vegan?" Is the answer somewhere between "They could be, sometimes." or "No one knows, really." ?

If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.

Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):

At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.

The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."

Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal?

Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy.

"The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable.

The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less."

I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: "This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all." (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: "This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution." (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued.

What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable.

So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.

Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.