Post #1370425

2026-02-08 16:58 UTC

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.

Replies (1)

@selokichtli@lemmy.ml 2026-02-08 18:35

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.

Open ##1370426