vegan

"There are environmentally sustainable ways of farming animals so why do vegans oppose those?"

Like... veganism is an ethical stance, not necessarily an environmentalist one (although environmentalism is based obviously.)

I also hate the false dichotomy of "leather vs. pleather" that often invites these kinds of takes.

This is something that I've been wondering about.

To me, a vegan Zionist is something I'd expect to hear of as an anomaly in the vegan community, something as rare as a Palestinian Zionist, a Jewish Neo-Nazi, a Marxist Zionist, or something like that, as these kinds of people do exist (somehow), but they're very obscure.

However, to see so many vegans not only validate the existence of Isn'trael but actually be full on Zios who show not the slightest bit of empathy or consideration for Palestinians is a headscratcher for me.

I have a gut feeling that Israel's veganwashing plays a big part in this, but vegans, of all people, are those who I would expect to look past such obvious, glaring bullshit, like they do with animal products that claim to be "humanely sourced."

Also, Gary Yourofsky formerly being a very strong voice in the movement likely plays a part in that as well... the man certainly has some takes.

[CW: Extreme Anti-Palestinian Sentiment] (This was in 2015, by the way.)

I see a lot of people at least joking about going vegan lately. I've been vegan for roughly.... ah, I want to say 4 years now? I lost track awhile ago. It was around the time the wreckers came to Hexbear and convinced a bunch of us to watch Dominion (highly recommend doing so btw, it's free online).

ANYWAYS, if you're interested in more than just shitposts and are seriously interested in veganism I was thinking I could help answer any questions you have. Comment here or send me a DM if you're blush shy. This comm has limits on what we can talk about btw, such as diet. And I think the whole website has restrictions on recommending specific brands of food? So DM for questions like that, thanks.

I've never actually made tofu because I don't cook often, but today it was on sale for $0.88/lb (limit 4) so now I have 4 pounds (1.8 kg) of tofu (3 firm, 1 extra firm) that I have no idea what to do with. The oven/stove at my place is broken, so I just have a microwave, but fwiw it has a convection option.

I know there's something about cutting it into cubes and pressing out the moisture, and I know it's really good at absorbing flavor but doesn't have much on its own, but that's about all I know. I guess I can look up recipes, but idk how to adapt them to a microwave and also online recipes are a pain because of SEO.

Thanks.

Please don't give me any recommendations for bad vegan toppings, nor any recommendations for good vegans topping me to be bred.

How have I not seen this cringe yet?

Oh wait this is Literally Karl Marx

This is a shortened version of the original made to enthuse you into reading. It shouldn't replace reading the real thing. Here, I just pasted parts I liked

II. Most animal rights philosophy today is metaphysical.

III. The merit of bourgeois anti-speciesist moral philosophy is that attacks the way speciesists legitimize animal exploitation. Yet it cannot contribute anything of substance on the origin and function of animal exploitation. Instead, it reduces all these questions to abstract, individual acts, views and practices that are treated in complete isolation from the functioning of capitalist society. Such moral philosophy is ahistorical. It is interested in the history of human-animal relations only in terms of the history of ideology, if at all; it can tell us nothing about the social origin and the genesis of speciesist ideology.

IV. In the course of class struggle, the ruling class has degraded nature in general and animals in particular to a means of production at their disposal, secured such hierarchy juristically and stipulated it as universally applicable. For that reason, it is lawful today for man to treat the animal as their property. Legal norms allow the exploitation of animals because they are bourgeois, not just because they are speciesist.

V. Humans are constructed as reasonable, rational and analysing subjects, which are raised above animals who are constructed as unreasonable creatures of nature controlled by their drives and affects. Arguing by means of this dualism is the foundation of the post-structuralist-anti-speciesist critique of power to explain the political dominance of humans over animals, the control of the former over the latter as well as the latter’s exclusion from democracy. It offers no explanation for what exactly created the ideological dualism of the human and the animal and what mediates it. Whenever anti-authoritarian anti-speciesists allude to this point, their analysis becomes woolly. For this reason, it remains phenomenological, in the end purely formal and, above all, idealist, as it considers mere (wrong) thinking to be the engine of history.

VI. The circle of friends, the butcher, the producer of meat, the animal testing laboratory and its lobbyists – according to those schools, they all must cast off their speciesist thinking for animals to be freed. Social praxis is here above all a question of social consciousness, which is the sum of the consciousnesses of all its separate individuals. Animal exploitation and animal liberation are reduced to a philosophical, epistemological, at best theoretical judicial problem.

VII. Within the capitalist process of production, animals and nature quite literally become a mere resource to exploit.

VIII. Humans, creatures of nature, who have to satisfy natural needs such as food, drink and so forth, hence do not differ categorically but gradually from animals, and this gradual difference is the result of their own politic-economic social praxis.

IX. Speciesist thinking about animals hence is not the basis of animal exploitation, but rather the latter’s ideological reflex. Marco Maurizi got to the heart of this: “We do not exploit animals because we deem them to be inferior, rather, we deem animals to be inferior because we exploit them.”

X. The product re-assumes the form of commodity, which is sold for profit. However, this profit, the accumulation of which is the reason and purpose of capitalist production, does not just fall from the sky. It can be obtained only by exploiting the workers: they work beyond the point at which they have produced a value equivalent to their wage; they thereby produce a surplus that is not at their own but at the capitalists’ disposal. Therefore, given that there are both exploiters and exploited in capitalist society, it is not the whole human species who exploits animals. Instead, the exploitation of animals and wage labourers first and foremost takes place following the interests and under the direction of the ruling class. Of course, the exploitation of animals and the exploitation of wage labourers differ qualitatively, and the latter do not necessarily act in solidarity with animals just because they are also being oppressed and exploited. Workers in abattoirs even kill animals. But capitalist relations of production do not only rest upon an antagonism between capitalists and the working class, but also between the ruling class and nature as well as animals. The former conducts the industrially organised exploitation of animals and profits substantially from it. Accordingly, as Marx writes, “The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for and practical debasement of, nature.” This of course includes animals. To answer the question why not only workers are exploited under capitalism but also animals – if in a particular qualitatively different way – one must examine the position and function that animals inherit in this form of organizing social labour, and hence the specific capitalist form of animal exploitation.

XI. Animals do not immediately take part in the social relations that are characteristic for capitalism as active individuals – they do not purchase or sell anything on the market, not even their labour: when they expend labour in the process of production they do not receive wages in return. Accordingly, animals do not produce surplus value and are not part of the working class. Their exploitation corresponds to what Marx describes as exploitation of nature: by virtue of bourgeois property rights and the economic power at their disposal, the capitalists make a profit from the ruinous dealing with animals and nature. This is not exploitation in the sense of the labour theory of value. Yet Marx also does not limit the notion of exploitation to the production of surplus value. And he certainly does not conclude from the observation that slaves also do not produce surplus value that they are not exploited.

Since they cannot resist in an organized manner, animals are appropriated just like other natural materials as freely available means of production, that is, as instruments of labour (as though they were machines for the production of eggs, milk, meat and so forth) and subjects of labour (leather, meat for further processing and so on). Wage labourers perform the oftentimes violent appropriation in practice. They execute, under capital’s command, the production of surplus value, which in the animal industry encompasses killing and milking as well as performing vivisections and suchlike more. The products that are produced by animals or which they themselves are, are processed further by wage labourers and are finally sold as commodities. The production of profits hence rests not only upon the exploitation of wage labourers, but also on that of animals in particular and of nature in general. For the purpose of maximizing the profits that are realized through the exploitation of animals, capitalists are striving to integrate animals into the process of production as efficiently as possible. Efficiently also means: by abstracting from their qualities, among which is their ability to suffer.

XII. Indeed, one cannot conclude from the critique of political economy that animals would automatically be liberated within a socialist or communist society. Yet, the struggle against the rule of capital and its expropriation are necessary preconditions in order to enable people to collectively cast the decision: we will liberate the animals!

XIII. Above all, the oppressed, exploited classes and animals have the same enemy, who profits from and is responsible for their exploitation while also organizing – in different ways – their oppression: the ruling class. In addition, Marxists need to recognize that due to its damaging social and ecological effects the current extent of animal production is objectively irrational and obstructs social progress.

XIV. This part basically says animal ag is counter-progressive because environment.

XVI. This is the difference between morality and moralism: revolutionary morals understand that a “really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life” (Engels).

XVIII. When taking all of this into account, then we also have to conclude: the very indignation we experience in the face of capitalism’s brutality that drives us to a Marxist analysis of society and to resistance is the same one that animal liberationists experience in the face of the suffering of animals. The enemy of animals – capital – is also the enemy of humans. As a Marxist, as an anti-capitalist, one must turn this impulse of solidarity into fuel for one’s life, and understand and acknowledge the objective position of animals within the capitalist process of production, that is, that they belong to those oppressed creatures at whose expense the ruling class accumulates its wealth. The class struggle for the liberation of animals is the struggle for the liberation of the proletariat.

Picture is of my daughter's portion, since she has the cutest bowl lol. I had to use mild gochujang since she can't quite handle the spicy kind yet

No one:

Non indigenous non-vegans: I can't stand it when vegans attack indigenous peoples.

OK, I get it. Vegans that pick on indigenous suck and should be called out. I've seen randos post on social media some bad takes. I'm not denying that it exists. If a vegan makes a bad point on indigenous topics and a carnist wants to jump in, I personally am not going to complain.

But the sheer number of times that I've seen a carnist derail a discussion on slaughterhouses. Like if no one is here mentioning indigenous people, it's pretty fucking sad and gross for you to do it. Is there nothing more creepy than using indigenous people to defend your treat privileges?

I just wish there was some real pushback for people doing this, because it's some real reactionary bullshit.

I've had this IRL discussion too many times, where the non-veg person says that a lack of meat affects their sleep, energy level, digestion, etc. I'm not a dickhead, and I don't argue with people's lived experience, even if it feels very sus.

I've done a good faith search for evidence of how certain people might have negative health effects from not eating meat, and nothing turns up. (Short of just having a bad veg diet) Maybe I'm missing something. It's just frustrating how often people use this as an excuse, and they're often anti-vegan in their wider ideology.

This is to help a friend find things for gifts for vegans in their life and so on. Mentioned here https://hexbear.net/post/3987758

Shoes are a gigantic problem when it comes to no plastic vegan clothing, pretty much everything is made of plastic when it comes to shoes. Rubber soles can often be mixed with plastic, and same is true with the so called plant leathers, which are merely a marketing gimmick.

Upon diving deeply on leather replacements, I've found that almost all 'plant' leathers are only 35% of the plant it claims to be. It does in fact change the quality and feel of the material, however, its still mostly fucking plastic. All of these companies doing these various leathers claim to be innovators saving the environment, but they all use the same fundamental process to mix plants into their plastic leather, hence the same percentage.

This includes:

• Apple leather

• Mushroom leather

• Cork leather

• Cactus leather

• Pineapple leather

This all points to the idea that this is just bazinga stuff currently and a fad liberals use to make themselves feel better. The only options that immediately spring to mind that aren't plastic are certain kinds of canvas, cotton, and (non vegan) leather shoes which seem to be the least plastic if ordered custom with wooden soles. Most canvas and cotton shoes all look the same and aren't particularly feminine and many use plastic tainted rubber soles, laminates, and glue, so the search continues.

Desserto, the company who makes cactus leather, seems to sport a lofty claim that their more pure and new samples of cactus leather are now 90% cactus, and 10% PU. This is a much more sensible ratio, but I cannot find information on anyone that actually sells this magical material.

Next up on the search: MIRUM rubber leather seems to be promising. It sports a claim that it is 100% untainted-by-plastic natural rubber (unlike many shoe soles and tires). Rubber farming is of course an environmentally intensive process for many reasons, but it technically is a carbon sink, technically is biodegradable, and if done properly, it could be good. I will be digging into this next. If it looks good, then there will be a struggle about finding a place that sells it in a US womens in size 12+. Rubber obviously has a very intense history of imperialism and in the present so... I'm very doubtful of the ethics of this. But I will dig.

The conversation eventually led to them implying they might engage in cannibalism given the opportunity. Carnism takes the mind some weird places.

Just wondering what the consensus would be. Is it good and fine (if you like the taste, of course) because it is truly 100% vegan? Or would y'all consider it a horrifying simulacrum of a product of cruelty towards animals?

I am asking because I'm a vegan chef and I was excited to find out that they're making animal-free "dairy" milk through bacterial/fungal fermentation, because plant based "milks" don't really work the same as cow milk does. And theoretically if it has the right proteins/fats it could be used to make vegan cheese that has the actual properties of cheese? So like I think it's very exciting personally. But I'd like to know what others think before I suggest we try to order some, since it'd be a waste if nobody actually wanted to eat anything made with it.

Went for brunch today at a plant-based joint and ordered the shakshuka - it came with two poached eggs that when you cut into them the yolk poured out and honestly tasted just like actual egg yolk. I was shocked. My partner ordered the benny and had the same poached eggs.

The albumin was ok, kind of rubbery but not bad but holy smokes eggs have really made it to another level now.

I do understand that for some people realism with respect to flavour and appearance is not a plus, that it reminds them of animal suffering in a way that they'd rather just eat a bean. Respect if that's you I love a bean making two different types tonight. But it's great to have such a rich set of options to be vegan in a way that used to be so much more constrained.

Better living through chemistry!

I don't agree with the gatekeeping of the take from a literal point of view, but rather I think that the sentiment of "It is reactionary to support exploitation and oppression, and it is hypocritical to claim that you oppose it while still continuing to support it" that leaks from it is spot on

Also, I gotta love how someone posted two separate comments within a minute of each other just to articulate a very short point of this take being "ableist." That's 100% indicative of seething.

I also love (this time using this word unironically) that she's a fellow black vegan communist who is sick of non-vegan leftist bullshit.

I got in a discussion with one who said I shouldn't support PETA because they believe that all domesticated animals, including pets, should be released into the wild. When I asked where PETA had stated such a thing, he said "they never did, but people claiming to be acting on behalf of PETA have kidnapped and released pets." I asked him, given why this was illegal, 1) why those responsible would so readily rat out their organization, and 2) why PETA, which has many enemies among capital who would benefit greatly from crushing it, has never been hit with RICO charges over this.

His response? "Well, PETA's never denied it!"

Because they never shut up about it! Especially if they find out you're a vegan!

Thanks for coming to my joke

Conservation of mass?

Do they understand that producing energy and fertilizer using the bodies of animals is less efficient than producing the same number of calories or mass of nitrates from plants+less-energy-than-is-required-to-raise-the-animal-in-question?

For example:

Carnist: "Hey, you want a slice of this pepperoni, triple cheese pizza?"

Vegan: "Sorry, no thank you, I'm vegan."

Carnist: "Oh, wow! Nice! I respect that! Yeah, I would go vegan, but I just would struggle with protein, B12, and iron if I did! Like, I tried being vegan for a week and got so sick! I still eat plant-based alternatives every now and then, though! And I totally get where you're coming from with your ethics! Yeah, the way they treat animals on those factory farms is crazy, bro! I hope those cruel practices can be abolished one day. Complete solidarity with you and the animals, dude! ✊ In the meantime, I absolutely try my best to get my meat, dairy, and eggs from local, free-range, humane, and organic farms!"

Vegan: "Okay?"

Like, seriously, just saying "Oh, okay." and moving on with your life would be preferable over this shit.