ignore my funky phone font

It's over, carnists. As you can see here, I have depicted YOU as the Chad and MYSELF as the soyjak, so you've already lost.

This really had me like:

(In all seriousness, I just went there to upload some images to host privately, as that's the only reason why I keep it around, but my eyes wandered.)

Vanguard is unapologetically a vegan leftist band, and actively supports and promotes a host of critical social and political causes, both lyrically and through the direct action and activism of its members. The band is ideologically tied to the animal liberation movement, endorses socialist political theory, is vehemently anti-fascist, and believes and fights for the political, legal, educational, and economic equality of all people, regardless of race, gender, orientation, or class.

A guy on my Steam friends list told me "I'm okay with eating chickens because they descended from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs would kill me if I were alive during their time period."

This is such an embarrassing excuse that it would actually be much more honorable for this guy to simply say shit like "I just don't give a shit about animals dying" or "Yeah, it's wrong to eat animals, but I'm a self-admitted hypocrite." Why do some people feel the need to go out of their way to justify carnism instead of... just being a carnist? It's not like I or anyone else can force this guy to stop eating chickens if he isn't to supply a justification for why he does it.

As far as the argument itself goes, for a simple deconstruction of such an absurd take: if you want to make the claim that the behavior of one's ancestors can dictate what is an ethical way to treat an individual as a descendant, by this logic, a good person who has a father that's a murderer would be ethical to kill for "self defense." Obviously, this bozo wouldn't believe that, but his absurd take here isn't supposed to be logical; it's just another pathetic grasping at straws that's a part of this unfortunate, never-ending cycle in which carnists say whatever they want to say to pretend that they're not a part of the problem. That's it.

I see a lot of people say things like "TERFs aren't real feminists" or "We should call TERFs something besides feminists," and I understand where this viewpoint comes from, but as a transfeminine person, I honestly don't like this approach.

I feel like when people utilize this approach, they're trying to see TERFs as a problem from the outside rather than a problem within. We cannot build a better, more inclusive, and more intersectional flavor of feminism if we assume that problematic tendencies such as transphobia are inherently beyond feminist thought.

Is TERF ideology flawed and misguided? Absolutely, 100%. Is it not feminist? On some level, I see why some would say it isn't, but at the very least, it's in the name of feminism. Although TERFs are incredibly sus with their hyperfocus on trans people, especially transfeminine people, and very minimal focus on actually advocating for women's rights, TERFs are not exactly stemming their transphobia from a viewpoint that conservative Christians, for instance, might stem their transphobia. Their viewpoint is tied to a certain interpretation of feminism, even if that interpretation sucks major doodoo ass.

We have to remember that even mainstream, liberal feminists are not exempt from some problems that TERFs embody. These kinds of feminists can often have transphobic and bioessentialist ideas as well. The difference? They are often more implicit and mask-on with these problematic tendencies. If they're not outright transphobic in their thinking, they, at the very least, tend to be very erasing of trans struggles, as they usually are with all other kinds of intersectionality. Their major issue with failing to grasp intersectionality is painfully obvious with how much they focus on white cishet women, failing to demonstrate that they don't even have a single place in their mind concerned about black women, trans women, and other more marginalized groups of women. I see these feminists as a problem obviously (because libs suck), but I certainly wouldn't say they're not feminists.

I'm functionally at a point where I can only trust feminists that are truly intersectional and communists, but unfortunately, I wouldn't say that outlook comprises most self-identified feminists. However, I wouldn't say that any feminist that deviates from the most helpful outlook on patriarchy isn't a feminist. They're just, in some way, a failed one in desperate need of education.

Quality Zaretcore shitpost

Trying to shame a group of people for simply existing is actually just vile and resentful hate and not a part of "civil debate"? Who woulda thunk it?

Definitely giving @Sickos@hexbear.net's comment some credit here!

This is a bit of a follow-up to this post. Someone responded to my analogy this way, and I'm just baffled that you can seriously say something like this to go so hard to defend babystepping.

no one will argue with you that 0 kids in the basement is better than 5 or 10, but it's still objectively better to have 5 than 10.

Imagine typing this and hitting send. Holy shit.

Also, I wasn't vegan from birth, but I sure as hell wish I fucking was. I regret every moment I supported the exploitation of animals. I also got convinced to go vegan by listening to ethical vegans who were really staunch in expressing just how fucking bad the way we treat other species is. If I got a bunch of apologists who told me "You can go vegan at whatever slow pace you like and it's totally fine and ethical!", then I would be so damn uneducated and blind to the truth.

To quote this genius who sent me this reply, "Exactly."