Edit: I just remembered I already had a reason to dislike this show because they blatantly used the name "Gen V" for their show despite obviously knowing (they do research for this thing) about the existing vegan/animal rights charity organization called Gen V, formerly known as Million Dollar Vegan, which has since been forced to largely rebrand as "Generation Vegan" and doesnt use the Gen V name as much anymore since the TV show is the most well known result for that name, while previously it was the vegan org. And Gen V is a good vegan-themed name too; maybe we'll still use it.

If anyone watches the show Gen V, which is the spin off of politically satirical superhero show The Boys, you probably were cringing with frustration at the inability to respond (almost like another Kevin Costner/Taylor Sheridan/Ted Nugent/Joe Rogan "Yellowstone" moment) to Hamish Linklater's character (no hate on the actor) when he made the argument that Australians love their national icon of the kangaroos because they kill them to strengthen their population. It left a bad taste and I had to say something about it. As someone who has come across this argument a lot, though usually in the American context of killing deers, it always pains me when people make misinformed claims that killing wild animals is somehow benevolent.

Here's the quote:

You ever been to Australia? Used to go with my dad when I was a boy. The Aussies love their kangaroos. So, every year, they let hunters kill them. They cull the population in order to protect it. For the strength of the herd.

Firstly I want to focus on the "positive" silver lining, which is that his character is a villainous utilitarian and he is using this logic as an argument to defend doing the same or similar to humans. And that's where many vegans would go immediately, is "Would you find this acceptable to do to humans under equivalent hypothetical conditions?" and then run Name The Trait/NTT ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZughsYK_qE ) or something if he says no, in order to resolve the inconsistency. But he already came out biting the bullet on doing it to humans unprompted, since that was his initial goal. So he kind of outed/unmasked himself as sociopathic before he even mentioned animals, and also demonstrated how his specific antivegan argument aligned with principles that most humans already find abhorrent. This is definitely an effective way to establish vegans/animal rights supporters (or at least people who are against hunting) as firmly on the camp of "good" and people who defend hunting and animal exploitation as on the side of "bad". Additionally and somewhat related, the character, who is probably a human supremacist (like most humans in the real world), is also a "Supe supremacist" and believes in the inferiority of humans who don't have powers because they haven't been dosed with a serum called compound V by the nefarious corporation Vought (where the show derives its "V" name from), which is a pretty stupid concept if you ask me. But it's an interesting parallel that he calls non-Supe humans simply "humans", which implicitly denies that "Supes" are humans too and raises them to a different category/level/status of superiority or value, which is exactly the same thing that most humans do when they refer to non-human animals/other animals as simply "animals" (I know even we vegans often do it too due to speciesist/carnist conditioning) and even overtly say that humans aren't animals and "can't be compared to animals", which actually stems from Biblical denial in evolution and the animal nature of humans and the belief that humans alone are basically gods/made in the image of god (which is why I tell hardcore atheists that they're paying service to Christianity and other religions when they pretend that humans aren't animals and spout all these Biblically-derived anti-vegan arguments). Relevant and based Carl Sagan quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/296126-humans-who-enslave-castrate-experiment-on-and-fillet-other

Now I want to try to debunk the argument, though I can't do any research for it right now so it's just going to be based on my existing knowledge, and mainly from a moral lens rather than fact-based/empirical. I'd love if any vegans would share their own thoughts on it, even if you haven't watched the show (you really don't need to).

1. It's a deontologically compromised utilitarian argument. It wouldn't matter if its claims were true, because it would still be fundamentally devaluing the life of the individual and prioritizing the "greater good" of the many. It violates core moral principles about the sanctity of sentient life. And of course, someone can hold this view and even apply it to humans consistently (which they would have to if they held it for non-human animals without contradicting themselves, as the argument from marginal cases/NTT establishes), but then they would be in disagreement with the majority of humans already, and probably themself on some level, who think their view is morally despicable and horrendous. And at that point it's just a joke to take them seriously.

2. The empirics of the claim don't seem to check out.

• Cipher (Linklater's character who made the pro-"culling" of kangaroos argument) claims that you're "strengthening the herd" by picking off the weaklings. In theory, this makes sense, though it's despicable. But that isn't what people are actually doing. In almost all cases, adult, mature, male, and strong/well built animals are killed, because those are the ones that are most valuable for humans to use, and because ironically even hunters usually have a hang up about killing animal children (but not orphaning them by killing their parents) if you can believe it. Very rarely are child animals or disabled/injured/deformed/small/weak animals killed, who would be the ones to kill off if you really wanted to "strengthen" the population, though even then it could do the opposite in some cases and disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem (which is almost never actually natural due to significant human interference).

• The dynamics with kangaroos and dingoes (the missing piece of the puzzle no one wants to talk about), or other of their natural predators like crocodiles, wedge-tailes eagles and pythons, is very similar to the dynamics with deers and their natural predators such as wolves, mountain lions, coyotes and bears in the US. Like deers, kangaroos are herbivorous. Both species of animals are hunted by humans (who are their primary threat) and one reason often given is because their populations are large or they're considered "pests" (imagine using that kind of language for a different race of humans you believed was intrusive), but even know that's often true with regard to population sizes, not only is it arguably incredibly morally unsound and insufficient reasoning/justification for taking their lives, but is also unnecessary for achieving the goal of lowering the population (and in reality doesn't lower it as I explained, and actually can increase and "weaken" it by allowing more "weaklings" to "dilute" the population strength and eliminating the biggest competitors for resources), and even counter-productive and self defeating. The population of those herbivorous wild animals is "overpopulated" (in humans' determination, despite being by far the most invasive, destructive and overpopulated species on Earth ourselves) because humans kill their natural predators, not to protect them or even to protect themselves (humans), but to protect animal farming operations, since otherwise predators will kill the farmed animals before the farmer/slaughterhouse worker can and they won't be able to use/sell them. In actuality, ironically and quite poetically in an almost intersectional or karmic reading, it all leads back to animal farming. Humans' desire to exploit and kill animals ultimately results in even more bloodshed done to facilitate, protect and ensure those habits - violence begets violence, both to humans and to non-human animals, but here being violent and oppressive to some animals leads to being violent and oppressive to more animals. Basically "we kill deers so that we can kill wolves so that we can kill cows". Or in this case "we kill kangaroos so that we can kill dingoes so that we can kill cows". It's as ridiculous and evil as that. We kill herbivorous wild animals to supposedly keep their population down (except it doesn't), which we simultaneously increase and undo our "work" of, not only by those actions themselves ironically but by killing the other animals who are keeping their populations down, which we do in order to be able to keep "farming", exploiting and killing animals to sell products made from them. It's insanity. We cause problems with violence and then try to fix them with more violence and just make them worse and continue the horrific cycle.

3. "Strengthening the population" is clearly not the real reason or motivation that most humans have for hunting non-human animals, including kangaroos in Australia. So this is a front/cover story/smokescreen/pretext. It's disguising the true intentions with post hoc rationalizions. It's the same kind of "logic" (or actually I would say propaganda) as when animal farming defenders and the industries themselves spin practices like cow-calf separation in the dairy industry or farrowing crates in the pig flesh industry as somehow benevolent or in the interests of the animals. Or that CO2 gas chambers for pigs are peaceful and don't cause suffering. It's complete profit-driven lies, 100% false. In reality, people hunt animals, including kangaroos, mostly so that they can eat their flesh, or use or sell their body for something else (such as this https://www.rooballs.com/australian-kangaroo-scrotum-gift-pack - yes it's real and they're disgustingly sold over the country as tourist souvenirs) or for sport/some kind of absurd bloodlust or sense of power/domination over others. This is always not only a factor/component but the ultimate reason why any of this is done, not to help animals or protect the environment. In the cases where people are hired by the government or authorized to kill wild animals to carry out "population control", they still do it for other reasons too, they still use the animals' bodies, or they do it to protect vegetation or their farming operations. It's never done purely to help animals (in some misguided way), and usually not done for them at all - it's done in the interests of humans, not our victims, obviously. And it's convenient that only the humans are here to share their side of the story because the other animals can't speak and defend themselves (which neither can some humans but we wouldnt exploit or discriminate against them just because they're differently abled in some way). I'm sure that deer or that kangaroo that you killed wouldn't be given any solace by the notion that their "sacrifice" was supposedly going to help other members of their species that they don't even know. It's just as bad for them no matter what reason you come up with to justify unnecessarily causing their suffering & premature death.

I may have more thoughts but that's about it for now. Hope this wasn't too off-topic or rambling. Would love to know what you all think about this.

https://strawpoll.com/poy9kl5VPgJ

If you're vegan, please answer the poll question in the link above.

If you're not vegan, please don't answer the question. I'm only interested in hearing what vegans think about this.

To be clear, I don't judge any vegans for believing that humans matter more than other animals. You're already doing the right thing by being vegan, so that's fine. It probably wouldn't affect your actions or decisions in any situation, aside from hypotheticals that are extremely unlikely to happen. So I think that being vegan is compatible with what some may call speciesism or human supremacy etc - or favoring/prioritizing members of your own species - without placing a value judgment on that. As we all know, you don't NEED to consider all sentient beings as mattering equally, in order to recognize that non-human sentient beings matter more than "your tastebuds" - or your particular fashion preference or whatever - or than your mostly arbitrary habits that you can easily change, and when you can replace and meet all your needs with alternatives.

That said, personally I think all sentient beings matter equally. I'm willing to accept any supposed reductios that extend logically from this view - though I don't consider them absurd, I find them to be logically sound & I actually find it to be impossible to logically defend speciesism without that leading to even "worse" reductios that the majority of people would be even more appalled by, and which would be far more arbitrary and less benevolent/empathically oriented. But I'm not here to debate that. I just wanted to state what my opinion is on the matter.

I also think that the antispeciesism argument is a great and very convincing/effective argument for veganism/animal rights - it's convinced many people to go vegan, especially the "Name the Trait" thought experiment etc - so it's interesting to me when people are vegan despite not agreeing with those antispeciesist arguments, and I really respect that since it indicates to me that you extend compassion to other sentient beings without it needing to be logically proven why you should or why it would be contradictory if you didn't - it's just natural empathy.

Plus, of course, we often tend to associate veganism with antispeciesism, and speciesism with carnism/animal exploitation - since they very often go hand-in-hand, and I think speciesism is kind of a risky ideology for a society to believe in while simultaneously significantly devaluing nonhuman animals - to a status lower than a human's arbitrary desire to eat a particular candy for example, seeing it as a "personal choice" and "right of the human consumer" to do whatever they want to other sentient beings provided they aren't a more legally protected species like humans, dogs or cats - but we must remember that this doesn't have to be the case and it is perfectly possible to be vegan without thinking humans and other animals are equally important/hold equal intrinsic moral value, etc. Now, equal moral consideration - or equity - is certainly possible either way, even if you don't think they hold equal absolute worth.

Very interested to see the poll results, since I'm actually not sure whether most vegans think humans and other animals matter equally or not.

Just want an objective answer to the question, no trolls pls. Appreciate responses from vegans.

Every vegan has probably heard "Why do you vegans make your food taste like meat (animal flesh) if you're against it?". And every time it continues to astound us that the reasoning fails to reach them and it requires explaining, how the moral objection relates to the treatment of actual animals rather than to how their bodies happen to taste when cooked or to that flavor/texture profile being approximated/simulated/replicated in foods that taste the same but don't involve the same issues of animal exploitation etc. Or how such products would be extremely beneficial and important if the main reason people are eating animal flesh is for the experience, and if we can provide them the desired object without all the harm involved - while meeting their more important (e.g. nutritional, energy & health) needs as well - since that can mean potentially trillions of sentient lives of non-human animals spared every year if people can actually be convinced to use the alternatives as replacements and stop buying the animal versions, not to mention the much lower environmental impact, etc.

And yet these products continue to be demonized in the media and in public, whether it's making dubious health claims about them steeped in Facebook-y misinformation, criticizing their supposed unnaturalness (and often purely basing the criticism of them on an appeal to nature fallacy), or relentlessly mocking and roasting vegans for eating them in any number of ways - including attempts at revealing some apparent hypocrisy of a vegan who would choose to eat them.

With all this external information we hear and are exposed to constantly, it can be difficult to separate our own thoughts and feelings from it sometimes, since the internalization of cultural attitudes is often very powerful & insidious. So if a vegan started feeling guilty or questioning their values and choices in relation to eating plant based meat, there's a good chance it could be attributed to paying too much attention to what the general "trolls" of the world and society think and say to us about our moral positions, lifestyle, diet, etc. and letting negative ideas get to us too much, being too self-critical, etc. However I wouldn't want to gaslight anyone either as everyone's experience is valid and it's entirely possible to have an overlapping personal attitude toward plant-based meat that is separate or unaffected by whatever other people (mostly non-vegans) have said to you.

Aside from people who don't have access to this category of products in general, I know a number of vegans who choose not to consume plant-based meat, some for health or cost reasons, while others are grossed or freaked out by its uncanny similarity to real animal flesh, which sometimes leads to avoidance and sometimes doesn't. (This variation makes sense since some vegans or vegetarians have a disgusted reaction to real animal flesh while others don't). So there exists some amount of seemingly genuine sentiment expressed naturally within the vegan community that is questioning the soundness of plant-based meat for different reasons, rather than such ideas existing purely by means of some artificial outside influence infiltrating our headspaces, potentially from the meat industry itself (they do have entire social media campaigns designed to discredit their competition after all).

Plant-based meat is a type of product I've had a strange relationship with. Since becoming vegan, Ive eaten more meat than I ever ate when I was a meat eater. I was vegetarian (not yet aware of the reasons to be vegan) for quite a while before plant based meat was really a thing/became widely available, so I never knew such products existed that were intended to actually replicate the taste and texture of animal flesh, nor had I ever needed to eat them or imagined or felt a desire for such a product - there are plenty of great plant based foods available as it is. Of course there were "veggie burgers" and things like that (which apparently a lot of people want to make a comeback) but while very tasty and hearty, the purpose of those was more to serve as a replacement for the nutrition and utility of animal meat rather than be a 1-1 substitute for the consumption experience of it.

So the arrival of realistic simulacrums of animal tissue on the market was unexpected to say the least. But now they've become ubiquitous and often dominate the vegan options available at many establishments. All the debate over processed foods aside, many people still prefer more whole food options or other plant based products like seitan, tofu, etc. But the reality is that these plant-based meat products are extremely popular, mostly among non-vegan, "vegan-curious" or flexitarian consumers who make up most of the purchases, as well as among vegans and vegetarians. People enjoy them for the taste experience while also finding them a convenient source of nutrition (not that it's necessary given other options). Some might choose them over animal meat for ethical, environmental or health reasons, regardless of the public disagreement & confusion around the healthfulness of plant-based meat vs animal meat (& as compared to plant-based whole foods etc).

For a casual vegan or vegetarian looking for options to choose from, I'm sure it's a familiar experience in recent times that some kind of dish with plant-based meat ends up being the only "proper" or decent option available in certain situations (or you have a wide range of options, every one of which happens to utilize plant-based meat). So the veg*n is more or less forced to eat plant based meat sometimes as a side effect of its popularity & availability in combination with the comparative lack of popularity and availability of deliberate vegan options in general, meaning it occupies the little space in the market that tailors to the demographic that wants vegan options (which, again, is mostly made up of non-vegans). This is something I wish non-vegans would remember when they think about judging vegans for eating plant-based meat, not that there's anything wrong with it, but we often don't actually have much choice anyway. If the plant based chicken option happens to be what's accessible instead of tofu or seitan or falafel or chickpeas or whatever then that's what we get. Also, in many cases the plant based meat option is literally just seitan, TVP or some other plant based food but they put the plant based meat label on it. Sometimes it can be easier to tell that it's not real animal flesh, which personally allows me to enjoy it more, appreciate it for what it is as a result of its plant-based ingredients, and reduces the small amount of worry that there's been a mixup with "real meat".

I don't judge any vegan or person in general who chooses to eat plant-based meat, I eat it myself sometimes (by choice even when there are other options), though I feel weird about it sometimes. I don't think it's a moral issue, though I'm not entirely certain of that since Ive heard some ethical cases to be made against it but which are more abstract/conceptual, symbolic, very consent and respect focused, and strongly principle-based/deontological rather than consequential, pragmatic or practical, etc. And I feel like given the real, physical, tangible and serious stakes of animal agriculture and the potential for food innovations like plant-based meat to disrupt its market and save animals, the purpose it serves is potentially more important and outweighs the value at least at this point in time for the animal rights movement (even if a temporary solution that could be re-evaluated later on in a vegan society) compared to relatively immaterial concerns/objections/qualms or feelings of moral uneasiness about taking pleasure in something designed to replicate the experience of eating an animal's flesh.

It's more just that I wonder sometimes how many of us ever feel weird and guilty eating it on some level, because in my opinion, even if it's perfectly understandable, moral and reasonable given the situation we're in in society, it is sort of a strange phenomenon. I think about whether we're being speciesist or if we would be comfortable with a similar scenario when it came to a human injustice that people were simulating as a replacement for it. I think the experience of being a vegan in today's world is very surreal in general and navigating the carnist society while holding the values we do is quite bewildering at times, so we can't really be blamed for not knowing how to act or for questioning ourselves and our conditioning etc.

However I think the feelings of guilt partly come from internalized shame caused by other people (non-vegans) criticizing & ridiculing us for eating plant-based meat. For example, when non-vegans say that we're "fake vegans" or "carnivores in disguise" because we secretly wish we were eating real animals, etc. just because we ate plant-based meat. All nonsense, but it can end up seeping into your subconscious and making you doubt yourself. Also with all the negative beliefs that people have about plant based meat in general, saying they think "vegans should just get their own foods", preferring us to eat/promote different vegan foods for some reason and particularly being against anything "processed" or "unnatural" at the moment. Do you ever feel like you want to hide the fact you're eating plant based meat so you don't have to deal with either judgment from non vegans or your own feelings of embarrassment about it? Even if it's irrational, it can be easy to slip into these destructive thought patterns about it. We shouldn't feel bad for eating WHAT we want (not who we want - and animals are "who"s, not "what"s). Or should we?

What has worked best in your experience when you just want to answer the question and survive the interaction without it turning into an all-out war (but you also don't want to lie about what your reasoning for being vegan is just to comfort the other person and fit in, as this feels to me wrong/harmful and disrespectful to the animal movement to mischaracterize what its purpose is)?

I am still trialing this, and haven't experimented with all these responses to the question, but here is what I am thinking may carry the least likelihood of triggering an argument or defensive, hostile, mocking comments etc. And then for fun (as well as clarification of the kinds of responses I am avoiding for this purpose), we can also talk about what responses which we know are going to provoke people. Please list what your go-to answers to this question are, it can help a lot.

Least likely to cause an argument:

"All the reasons." / "Many reasons".

"It just felt right for me."/"It felt like the right thing to do." (Not sure I'm too happy about this one as far as watering down the movement, and its non-specificity, but it's ok - I tried it before [1st version] and person just looked at me strangely and didn't say anything, convo moved on.)

"For the animals."

"For the 'Big 3' reasons: the animals, the planet, and my personal health."

Somewhat likely to cause an argument:

"I couldn't find a good enough justification not to be."

"Because I love/respect animals/animals are cool individuals."

"I learned about the cruelty involved in using animals for food, clothing, etc."

"Because I'm a pacifist."/"Because I'm against violence/I believe in peace, love, respect, ahimsa, etc."

"Because I find what humans are doing to other animals cruel and unnecessary."

"I'm not into the animal industry, it seems rather extreme."

"Because it's the future."

"Because animals are sentient beings."

"Because I believe animals deserve rights e.g. to self-preservation, freedom, autonomy, the pursuit of happiness, etc."

Most likely to cause an argument (these are examples of the kinds of responses that I'm especially wanting to avoid in certain situations and searching for less-inflammatory/provocative, less-blunt alternatives for):

"Why wouldn't I be?"/"It's a moral obligation."

"Because animals didn't consent."

"Non-human animals are non-human persons." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Non-human_animals )

"Non-human animals are someones, not somethings".

"Because animals are here with us, not for us."/"Because animals are ends in and of themselves, not means to our ends."/"Because the value of an animal is intrinsic, not extrinsic/instrumental"./"I realized we have no right to own and take advantage of another living (sentient) being for our own ends."

"I believe in justice and progress for all sentient beings and the liberation of marginalized groups of individuals."

"I'm ideologically opposed to the institution of systemic animal commodification/domination/objectification/exploitation."

"Because I'm against slavery/injustice/oppression/etc."

"For the same reason you're against eating dogs or humans, but extended consistently."/"For the same reason you're against dog-fighting."/"For the same reason I'm against racism".

"Because meat is murder and dairy is rape (Note: this refers to artificial insemination)".

"I don't like funding/contributing to/participating in holocausts/mass-murder/genocides/speciecides of other species."

"Because I'm not a savage."

"Because I'm not a speciesist".

"Why aren't you?"/"It's not about why I'm vegan. It's about why do you exploit & consume & use the lives and bodies of non-human animals?"

Joke answers (can be effective to soften the conversation and avoid talking about it seriously, but may belie the true intentions of veganism):

"I have a vendetta against plants and I'm on a mission to kill as many plants as possible... oh wait, I'm actually sparing more of them by being vegan than by supporting animal agriculture. That sucks."

"I asked an animal what their preference was and they told me they'd rather not be eaten or used for products."

"I'm avoiding being judged negatively by our descendants when we live in a vegan society."

"I'm part of the evil woke vegan agenda."

"I'm funded by Bill Gates."

Disclaimers:

I know many would say "There is only one reason to be vegan, because veganism is a justice stance about animals - it's not a diet and it's not about health, environment, or any other side-benefit of animal-free living." - Though I don't think it's necessarily a problem to acknowledge those other benefits in addition to focusing on animals. And yes, when I ask about how to answer the question of why one is vegan, I am referring to the definition of veganism that is an ethical philosophy for animals or animal rights, but there are actually a lot of different ways to answer this question truthfully, and you can come at it from many angles. For example, you don't need to list every reason, you can just state one, and it would still be true - as long as it's actually related to the animals from an ethical perspective (I don't want to promote misconceptions about what veganism is). And the particular way in which you describe it - including the exact wording you use - can certainly elicit different responses.

I am totally fine with people who are in social situations answering this question (Why they are vegan) in a way that WILL likely trigger an argument or resistance from the other person, if you're fine with doing that - and it can be a good opportunity for activism, advocacy, misinformation-correcting, etc.

Also, I understand that if stating the truth in a particular way causes an emotional response, defensiveness or counter-arguments, mean comments/mockery/ridicule/bullying, or makes the person become outraged/pearl-clutching and strawman you and accuse you of things you didn't actually say or mean, it's largely on them and isn't your fault. But as unreasonable as people can be, we have to work around them and coexist with them while living in society, and I still would like to be able to, in certain situations where I'm not in the mood for an argument/debate or tense/heated discussion (especially since I do care a lot about the topic), answer the question, which comes up a lot, in a peaceful and amicable manner that basically defuses/avoids the potential conflict and allows us to get on with the social interaction normally.

If it prompts further questioning or curiosity (even in an honest, good-faith manner), that still actually isn't the most ideal (unless I want to talk about it, or I think they're a reasonable person who will understand), since it can lead to opportunities for running into the same problems if the conversation continues and e.g. we reach a point of disagreement, but it doesn't necessarily have to and can in some cases be a rewarding dialogue or simply last for a few more lines and then segue into something else seamlessly.

I also know it's not possible to avoid upsetting/offending people 100% of the time, and some people will inevitably get triggered by your response to the question (whatever it is), or even from the get-go just from knowing you're vegan and taking the chance to express their opinions on the matter or their objection to veganism and justification for not being vegan, concern trolling, mean-spirited teasing, etc. But the goal of finding the "Golden Answer" to this question which I'm searching for, is to reduce the likelihood of negative responses as much as realistically possible, and yet without betraying my true values and beliefs about animals etc (and what veganism is about).

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.

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?