Dec 11, 2018 06:45 AM
(This post was last modified: Dec 11, 2018 06:52 AM by C C.)
Veganism is a social justice movement. It champions animal rights and opposes carnism, exploitation, and torture. Veganism belongs to the multifarious spectrum of activism that addresses the plight of beings oppressed by "racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, speciesism, ecocide, etc".
So why -- especially in the context of online vigilantism which bypasses due process -- are the applicable industries, companies, and sectors of government not being pressured to fire celebrities, VIPs, and public figures in general who are consumers of meat and other animal products? Or at least stigmatize and pillory them as unethical individuals. (Not just the "big-shots", but even average folk who happen to fall under the crosshairs of an SJW sniper or patrol.) Why does veganism's own "heavy stick" usually seem limited to just pummeling classic violators like Michael Vick, who are so far over the edge that they can be apprehended by law or are in the process of being pursued?
To submit that veganism has been less effective than its social justice siblings due to the vast majority of the population being adherents of carnism[1] would seem ludicrous. Since the same group was once openly dominated by the broad list of bigotry, opportunist, and bullying categories (at least in the lighter/subtler verbal sense, if not always the outright social / employment exclusiveness and physical aggression contexts). The latter members were nevertheless eventually subdued by moral excellence and have simply gone underground for fear of their reputations, careers and jobs. Now engaging in proper speech and conduct displays much like adoring North Korean citizens heaping ostensive praise upon Kim Jong-un's policies and weeping meleodramatically / affectedly at his father's funeral back in late 2011.
Yet, due to this inconsistency of not heaping similar (i.e., effective) shaming consequences upon the majority which still devours meat and buys a variety of non-edible goods containing animal ingredients... Those of us who qualify thus still boldly do so commit these deeds (evil to the core).
No, veganism's impotency problems seem to revolve around an identity crisis. The perception, even among fellow social justice factions and sympathizers, that it consists of merely loose "individual ethical stances".[2] Obviously this errant conception needs to be remedied, so that veganism can fully brandish its own intimidating Jaws teeth along with all the rest in the show of strength parade.
- - - footnotes - - -
[1] Carnism: The Ideology of Meat (excerpt): It is essential that those of us who espouse progressive values and thus support social justice initiatives recognize the paradoxical mentality of meat. Because although this mentality is pervasive, it is not inherent in our species—it is the product of an oppressive ideology so entrenched that it is invisible, its tenets appearing to be universal truths rather than ideologically driven assumptions. This ideology shapes and is shaped by the same type of mentality that enables other oppressions, and it is therefore essential to address if we hope to create a more just social order. Eating animals is not simply a matter of personal ethics; it is the inevitable end result of a deeply entrenched, oppressive ism. Eating animals is a social justice issue.
Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions us to eat certain animals. Carnism is the opposite of veganism; we tend to think it is only vegans (and vegetarians) who bring their beliefs to the dinner table. But when eating animals is not a necessity for survival, as is the case in much of the world today, it is a choice—and choices always stem from beliefs. Most of us do not, for instance, eat pigs but not dogs because we don’t have a belief system when it comes to eating animals.
[2] Veganism is Not “Food Ethics”: Veganism is about Social Justice] (excerpts): Veganism, at its root, is a social justice position grounded in the political collective. This means that mass exploitation and torture of animals can be eradicated only with social and political restructuring. Notice that we demand social and political restructuring also to address the plight of other oppressed groups . . . because to be anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc is to take a social justice position. These are not individual ethical stances (although they are founded on ethical concerns and ethical implications do follow). There is no talk of “do you!” when it comes to social justice positions because to take a social justice position is to make some sort of claim about rights. Rights are a universal notion, not a “do you!” notion. Not only is veganism a social justice position but also it is one grounded in a critical stance. It is a position funded by the critique of our inherited consumption narrative with respect to animals. [...]
Achieving vegan goals is certainly a realizable project. The only obstacle in the way of seeing this is the tendency to misconstrue veganism as an individually based ethical project! [...]
Veganism is not merely a food practice or food ethics or a diet. This is not to say that food practices are not social justice issues. They certainly are and deserve more attention. However, veganism is a social justice position with the aim of securing animals rights and, as such, is not exhausted by what we eat or wear. [...]
Veganism is not a social justice issue isolated from other social justice issues. [...] According to [...the...] “single-issue” mindset, activisms are structured to address one issue and it addresses this issue as being fundamentally independent of and different from other issues. [...] The single-issue approach obscures the reality of how racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, speciesism, ecocide, etc are all not only connected but dependent on one another to form what I call a ‘pernicious holism’.
Conclusion. The take away from all of this is that viewing veganism from the individual perspective as a practice that exhausts itself in personal ethics is diametrically opposed to the aim of veganism, which is to eradicate the myth that animals belong in the consumption narrative. [...] We need to insist that we are involved first and foremost in the business of social justice. Morality talk merely tells us something about us- about our character, about whether we are good or bad. Rights-talk tells us something about animals– about what they deserve and what they still don’t have.
~
So why -- especially in the context of online vigilantism which bypasses due process -- are the applicable industries, companies, and sectors of government not being pressured to fire celebrities, VIPs, and public figures in general who are consumers of meat and other animal products? Or at least stigmatize and pillory them as unethical individuals. (Not just the "big-shots", but even average folk who happen to fall under the crosshairs of an SJW sniper or patrol.) Why does veganism's own "heavy stick" usually seem limited to just pummeling classic violators like Michael Vick, who are so far over the edge that they can be apprehended by law or are in the process of being pursued?
To submit that veganism has been less effective than its social justice siblings due to the vast majority of the population being adherents of carnism[1] would seem ludicrous. Since the same group was once openly dominated by the broad list of bigotry, opportunist, and bullying categories (at least in the lighter/subtler verbal sense, if not always the outright social / employment exclusiveness and physical aggression contexts). The latter members were nevertheless eventually subdued by moral excellence and have simply gone underground for fear of their reputations, careers and jobs. Now engaging in proper speech and conduct displays much like adoring North Korean citizens heaping ostensive praise upon Kim Jong-un's policies and weeping meleodramatically / affectedly at his father's funeral back in late 2011.
Yet, due to this inconsistency of not heaping similar (i.e., effective) shaming consequences upon the majority which still devours meat and buys a variety of non-edible goods containing animal ingredients... Those of us who qualify thus still boldly do so commit these deeds (evil to the core).
No, veganism's impotency problems seem to revolve around an identity crisis. The perception, even among fellow social justice factions and sympathizers, that it consists of merely loose "individual ethical stances".[2] Obviously this errant conception needs to be remedied, so that veganism can fully brandish its own intimidating Jaws teeth along with all the rest in the show of strength parade.
- - - footnotes - - -
[1] Carnism: The Ideology of Meat (excerpt): It is essential that those of us who espouse progressive values and thus support social justice initiatives recognize the paradoxical mentality of meat. Because although this mentality is pervasive, it is not inherent in our species—it is the product of an oppressive ideology so entrenched that it is invisible, its tenets appearing to be universal truths rather than ideologically driven assumptions. This ideology shapes and is shaped by the same type of mentality that enables other oppressions, and it is therefore essential to address if we hope to create a more just social order. Eating animals is not simply a matter of personal ethics; it is the inevitable end result of a deeply entrenched, oppressive ism. Eating animals is a social justice issue.
Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions us to eat certain animals. Carnism is the opposite of veganism; we tend to think it is only vegans (and vegetarians) who bring their beliefs to the dinner table. But when eating animals is not a necessity for survival, as is the case in much of the world today, it is a choice—and choices always stem from beliefs. Most of us do not, for instance, eat pigs but not dogs because we don’t have a belief system when it comes to eating animals.
[2] Veganism is Not “Food Ethics”: Veganism is about Social Justice] (excerpts): Veganism, at its root, is a social justice position grounded in the political collective. This means that mass exploitation and torture of animals can be eradicated only with social and political restructuring. Notice that we demand social and political restructuring also to address the plight of other oppressed groups . . . because to be anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc is to take a social justice position. These are not individual ethical stances (although they are founded on ethical concerns and ethical implications do follow). There is no talk of “do you!” when it comes to social justice positions because to take a social justice position is to make some sort of claim about rights. Rights are a universal notion, not a “do you!” notion. Not only is veganism a social justice position but also it is one grounded in a critical stance. It is a position funded by the critique of our inherited consumption narrative with respect to animals. [...]
Achieving vegan goals is certainly a realizable project. The only obstacle in the way of seeing this is the tendency to misconstrue veganism as an individually based ethical project! [...]
Veganism is not merely a food practice or food ethics or a diet. This is not to say that food practices are not social justice issues. They certainly are and deserve more attention. However, veganism is a social justice position with the aim of securing animals rights and, as such, is not exhausted by what we eat or wear. [...]
Veganism is not a social justice issue isolated from other social justice issues. [...] According to [...the...] “single-issue” mindset, activisms are structured to address one issue and it addresses this issue as being fundamentally independent of and different from other issues. [...] The single-issue approach obscures the reality of how racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, speciesism, ecocide, etc are all not only connected but dependent on one another to form what I call a ‘pernicious holism’.
Conclusion. The take away from all of this is that viewing veganism from the individual perspective as a practice that exhausts itself in personal ethics is diametrically opposed to the aim of veganism, which is to eradicate the myth that animals belong in the consumption narrative. [...] We need to insist that we are involved first and foremost in the business of social justice. Morality talk merely tells us something about us- about our character, about whether we are good or bad. Rights-talk tells us something about animals– about what they deserve and what they still don’t have.
~
