No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I think there's nothing wrong with explaining your ideas and why you believe them to those willing to listen, but I can see why pushy activism for any cause can get annoying quickly. There are often Jehovah's witnesses outside my local supermarket, for example, but they only give you a pamphlet if you specifically approach them
It's not just pushy, it's judgemental and vitriolic
Oh, you eat meat, murderer? Your shoes are made from the skins of defenseless creatures. The sugar you're so callously adding to your coffee was processed with ground-up bones, you unredeemable monster.
Even the arguments for veganism that aren't built on animal cruelty still take on an air of moral superiority. Don't you care about the planet and future generations? How dare you trade carbon emissions for the temporary comfort of a bacon cheeseburger!
The vegan movement has always been associated with anger and contempt, even if it is justified.
There’s also the ‘guilt by association’. Look at organisations like PETA: they even complained about things like the treatment of entirely fictional animals in video games, like Palworld. Basically, you can’t even argue that ‘they look like real animals so it encourages real-world mistreatment’ like they usually do.
That does not make you look particularly sane. I’m sure they do good work as well, but that sort of thing isn’t helping their cause.
Saying PETA is representative of vegans is rather like using Antifa as an example of liberals, or Info Wars for conservatives.
Which is exactly what everyone does. At least in the US. And every side is equally wrong about it.
The loudest voices always draw the most attention. And I don’t know any other vegan voice that’s as loud as PETA’s. That’s kind of the problem.
PETA might do something good by accident. They kill 60-70% of the pets they receive for donation, so I guess the lucky 1/3 that don’t get the ax are a good thing.
PETA was giving away free coloring books one time so I decided to order some for my kids thinking it would be good for them to hear from all sides.
One of the pictures was three people standing over a turkey dinner with the most horrific caricatures you can think of absolutely salivating over how juicy the turkey was going to be.
I shit you not.
I had to trash the sons of bitches.
Really killed that group for me, I always that people were exaggerating about them and how bad they are.
They killed that little piece of me.
In my experience, your first sentence sums it up nicely.
They assume a moral high ground because they've adopted a diet that is generally deemed healthier and better for the environment (I don't always agree with this).
But unless they're also doing all the things we could all do better (e.g. not buying new, not upgrading the the latest and greatest, not taking 40 minute showers, not eating out every second day), they're only somewhat less guilty of environmental damage than the average person, but they're taking a generally undeserved "holier than thou" position and then shoving it down your throat. This isn't everyone, and I don't really care what you eat, but these are the vegans that get under my skin.
Eh, I can see it both ways. Like, nobody is, or can be, perfect. That doesn't mean they don't have a valid moral argument for the good choices they make. They're trying to be a better person, and I think it's fair to help other people recognize the poor decisions they are making. Climate change especially affects all of us.
On the other hand, you're 100% correct. Nobody can lay exclusive claim to the high ground, so anybody acting superior is probably an asshole.
If I tell you that I bike to work, walk to the grocery store, buy most of my products used, and don't have an Amazon account, will you listen to me?
Also I would always listen to you, I may not agree or take your advice, but I will listen to you
It would be someone being less of a hypocrite so you would not be seen as as annoying as the other option
In my experience it's usually more like: Them: here have some of this meat thing Me: No thanks Them: why not it's really good try some Me: i don't eat meat Them: but why? Me: to reduce animal cruelty and environmental harm Them: wow how dare you be so judgy
I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to not offend this type of person in this situation and frankly I don't think it's my fault or my problem they're offended. My theory is that that agree with my reasons but rather than change or live with the cognitive dissonance they just lash out at anyone that reminds them they could be living more ethically even if they basically MAKE them say it.
Blaming vegans for that is bullshit, frankly
That isn't the type of behavior that I think most find annoying but I'm sorry that you get that reaction at all.
I think many people are so annoyed with feeling they are attacked for eating meat (and I do eat meat) that when that button gets pressed the anger just rises up.
For me I get a little true guilt. I know I'm not helping in the best possible ways that I can, all the time. I'm not perfect and won't ever pretend that I am, and I also haven't given up on getting better. When I go a day without eating meat, I congratulate myself. With a burger. (No, not really.)
Some people see "to reduce animal cruelty" as judgy because that's just how nature is. The moral superiority comes from you acting like you're somehow above everyone and everything else. It's entirely in your wording and the implications that if you eat meat, you enjoy animal suffering vs seeing it as a natural outcome of nature.
This is completely besides the point, but I personally view factory farming as different than what happens in nature.
This is also beside the point, but you are making some wild logical leaps here. The fact that I personally don't want to support factory farming because I think it is cruel in no way means that I think other people "enjoy animal suffering" and assuming that is arbitrarily assigning thoughts I have never had to me.
None of the above is really relevant because I should be allowed to go about my day without justifying my dietary choices just as people that eat meat should.
Look, you don't deserve the treatment you've described. Everyone here agrees with you on that.
The person you were replying to was trying to explain why what you said might be interpreted as judgemental, even if that's not how you meant it (and we all believe you, even if the people you're talking about don't).
I think the last line sums it up. You don't eat meat, and that's the only explanation you owe anyone.
However, I know that when I'm providing a meal and I learn someone doesn't eat meat, I always ask follow up questions because maybe I cooked the 1rice with chicken stock, or maybe the vegetables were sauteed in butter. If it is a moral choice, I would appreciate a heads up so I can prepare a meal everyone can enjoy. I'm not irritated by the request, because that's the whole reason why you cook food for friends. If it's a healthy choice, you might still eat some of the brown rice, or maybe I sub oil for butter. Those are changes I can make on the fly.
I know I've probably unintentionally offended some vegans by probing for more answers. And I've met some vegans who are every bit as judgemental as you've been assumed to be. We could all do a little bit better at understanding each other.
I'd not see it as judgemental, just trying to inform. These days meatcis just a commodity, completely disasociated from the animals it comes from and without second thougt on how those animals are treated. If I go into detail like this, it's really just to get the info out there in a casual way. The person in question might ignore it, or may think about it. I also needed nudges like this to realize the moral issue and I'm happy for every one of them. I don't really go into detail much, and rarely inform someone about my preferences. But will answer truthfuly when asked
If someone chooses to ignore ot just not see the suffering behind eating meat in this day and age, it is frustrating though to say the least. Especially if simply reducing the meat intake and being more selective about the source of the meat comes a long way. But I get why it is so tough, as I'm not a saint myself and while I reduce meat most of the time, I still have some occasionally even if I feel bad about it.
I will go and shoot the next dog I see. You won't judge me for that, right?
Yes, good example. It is precisely that sort of judgemental strawman bullshit that gives vegans a bad rep.
And it's history stems from religious ideology.
Edit: oh you downvoters. Go look it up. A woman had a vision from God that said "don't eat things with faces". Dead serious - that's where it started.
All the sciencey justifications today are post-hoc rationalization.
The current vegan movement has nothing to do with religion, except at the individual level. You're conflating being vegan for religious reasons with being one for secular moral reasons. Modern vegans came from a split in vegetarian activist groups because too many vegetarians weren't willing to criticize the dairy industry and its practices.
The UK has a high rate of veganism, and part of that is attributed to the fact that the major vegetarian and vegan organisations in the UK generally recommend persuading people by offering them delicious food that is also vegetarian/vegan and saying it's more ethical. On the other hand, the equivalent organisations in the US tend to lean more towards recommending telling people that eating animal products is unethical, and it's difficult to accuse someone of unethical behaviour without being insulting. It also doesn't help that multibillion-dollar organisations have run successful smear campaigns against groups like PETA - everyone's heard of the time they took someone's pet dog and killed it, but most aren't aware that it happened once and gets reported on as if it's news every few months, or that it was an accident as the dog's collar had come off and it was with a group of strays, and got muddled with another dog, so was put down weeks earlier than it was supposed to be, bypassing the waiting period they had specifically to avoid this kind of mistake.
PETA has a lot more fucked up behavior under its belt than the one time they “accidentally” euthanized a dog they stole from someone, and much of their bad behavior has been very much maliciously intentional. Here just a small sample.
ETA: A few more, because why the hell not? Fuck PETA.
It doesn't strengthen your point to link Fox News and the literal website for the smear campaign I mentioned: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PETA_Kills_Animals
As for PETA putting down lots of animals, that's no secret. It's really easy to get people to donate to a no-kill animal shelter, so there are lots of them. However, when you're a no-kill animal shelter, and you're full of animals you can't kill, or are asked to take an animal that can't be ethically be treated with anything other than euthanasia, you have to turn the animal down, and it ends up wherever will take it. Usually, that ends up being a PETA-run shelter. When a PETA-run shelter is being given all the rejects from everywhere else, it's obviously going to end up putting lots of animals down. It'd be better for PR if they didn't, but less ethical, and they prioritise the ethics above the PR.
If you look at one of your more reliable sources, the Snopes article, it backs up what I'm saying, and not what you're saying. It corroborates the story from my original post, lists another incident where PETA staff were accused but not convicted, and then discusses that they put down a lot of animals in their shelters, and how it includes healthy animals. The only controversy there is the definition of adoptable - a healthy stray kitten is theoretically adoptable, but if you get ten times as many kittens in a week as you do people wanting to adopt a kitten, 90% of them won't get adopted, and your shelter will get quickly overcrowded if you insist on ignoring that fact.
I'm no fan of Fox News in general myself, but just because we don't like them doesn't make everything they publish false. And yeah, the PETA kills site clearly has an agenda, but their agenda is to try and save animals from PETA's "love." There's sensationalism on that site, but there are also numbers, many of which come from PETA themselves.
I linked the Snopes article knowing that it supported points from both sides. The point in linking that article is that it's despicable that any of those reports of PETA's disgusting behavior are true at all.
You know what no-kill shelters try to do when they don't have space? Coordinate with local foster programs, coordinate with other shelters to see if they have space. There are other alternatives besides taking in a perfectly healthy animal and dropping it in the euthanasia queue.
I'm quite sure there are quite a few things PETA has been accused but not convicted of. When you're a group of assholes as big as that, you get pretty good at skirting the fine lines of what's legal and what's not. They're hardly the first example of groups like that.
Their agenda's to make PETA look bad so people don't become vegan or demand higher welfare standards from meat producers, and they can continue selling meat to Americans of such low standards that it would be illegal in the rest of the civilised world.
As I said, they can't do that once the foster programs and other shelters are full, too, and then overflow into PETA-run shelters because they're the ones that still have a capability to receive more animals after they're full. There aren't enough shelters to keep every animal in good conditions until it's either adopted or dies of natural causes, and no amount of coordination can magically create extra capacity.
I'm sure PETA shelters would have more capacity if they didn't prefer to see an animal dead than a pet. They have significantly higher kill rates than any other shelters, and have made their stance pretty clear that they're against animals being pets. No wonder they just keep killing them.
Check my comment history about 3 posts back to see my interaction with peta
That's actually not the problem. The problem are those who repeat themselves ever louder, even to people who have expressed disinterest.
Have you heard about our lord and saviour of our sins?