I don’t go over my day calling people names. It’s not hard for me to call them as they want them to be called, and if I don’t know that, they are just people like me.
Carnist is a description of someone who has a meat-inclusive diet, other descriptions of people by what they can or cannot eat are e.g. vegan, lactose intolerant, celiac… It’s not a “name” you call someone, it’s a description of someone using a certain aspect of them relevant to the discussion.
A “name”, as in, something used to insult would be e.g. corpsemuncher, bloodmouth, cheesebreth &c.
Edit: Also, that wasn’t the point. Vegans call themselves vegans, nobody is asking them to call others by any name, proper or improper, in vegans’ point of view.
The point behind not using “nonvegan” is that it frames carnists as "the normal"s and the “vegans” as the one who have “something special” going on. This is true with celiac and nonceliac, lactose intolerant and not lactose intolerant. But we argue that veganism, i.e. not killing if unnecessary, is the normal thing to do. That the only reason it doesn’t seem that way is because it got normalized through repetition and how widespread it is.
Nobody is asking to stop the torture of dairy cows &c. other than vegans either so I don’t understand why you think the point in your edit matters.The point in demonstrating for societal change is precisely doing stuff others aren’t asking for.
I guess a vegan would see the point in that. Vegans are normal in my book, as in they are people. If they didn’t call themselves vegans, I wouldn’t call them any particular way as a noun. If I needed to describe them, I’d say, “they are people who only eat vegetables”.
I get it, though, it’s a discourse battle derived from their moral views and expected ethics. It’s just they don’t come across as very approachable.
I should note, although it’s not directly relevant to your point, that “people who eat vegetables (instead of meat)” are also called vegetarian. The precise degree to which oppression of animals is tolerable was a contencious debate among vegetarians, which led to the creation of “The Vegan Society” to rally those that argued for “no oppression at all”. So even though dairy and egg farming require animal murder (to deal with the newborns considered a “byproduct”) vegetarians don’t object to those.
Vegans however take the idea that animals are thinking, feeling creatures to its logical conclusion and will argue for no animal products anywhere. No leather, no beeswax, no brushes with animal hair, no trips to the zoo, no pets and so on. It’s very much not just the diet, although that is of course a huge part of it.
I don’t go over my day calling people names. It’s not hard for me to call them as they want them to be called, and if I don’t know that, they are just people like me.
another user said it’s like how christians call non-believers sinners. that makes sense to me.
The actual term is secular. The ones using sinner are the vegans of the Christian world.
Carnist is a description of someone who has a meat-inclusive diet, other descriptions of people by what they can or cannot eat are e.g. vegan, lactose intolerant, celiac… It’s not a “name” you call someone, it’s a description of someone using a certain aspect of them relevant to the discussion.
A “name”, as in, something used to insult would be e.g. corpsemuncher, bloodmouth, cheesebreth &c.
It’s used as a pejorative. It’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I mean in the same way as “terf” I guess
So, some nonvegan people?
Edit: Also, that wasn’t the point. Vegans call themselves vegans, nobody is asking them to call others by any name, proper or improper, in vegans’ point of view.
The point behind not using “nonvegan” is that it frames carnists as "the normal"s and the “vegans” as the one who have “something special” going on. This is true with celiac and nonceliac, lactose intolerant and not lactose intolerant. But we argue that veganism, i.e. not killing if unnecessary, is the normal thing to do. That the only reason it doesn’t seem that way is because it got normalized through repetition and how widespread it is.
Nobody is asking to stop the torture of dairy cows &c. other than vegans either so I don’t understand why you think the point in your edit matters.The point in demonstrating for societal change is precisely doing stuff others aren’t asking for.
I guess a vegan would see the point in that. Vegans are normal in my book, as in they are people. If they didn’t call themselves vegans, I wouldn’t call them any particular way as a noun. If I needed to describe them, I’d say, “they are people who only eat vegetables”.
I get it, though, it’s a discourse battle derived from their moral views and expected ethics. It’s just they don’t come across as very approachable.
I should note, although it’s not directly relevant to your point, that “people who eat vegetables (instead of meat)” are also called vegetarian. The precise degree to which oppression of animals is tolerable was a contencious debate among vegetarians, which led to the creation of “The Vegan Society” to rally those that argued for “no oppression at all”. So even though dairy and egg farming require animal murder (to deal with the newborns considered a “byproduct”) vegetarians don’t object to those.
Vegans however take the idea that animals are thinking, feeling creatures to its logical conclusion and will argue for no animal products anywhere. No leather, no beeswax, no brushes with animal hair, no trips to the zoo, no pets and so on. It’s very much not just the diet, although that is of course a huge part of it.
I know what a vegan is. It’s just I’m not a vegan myself to be going in-deep about their system of beliefs.
Unironically the most respectful carnist I’ve met