Silly downvoters. You’re absolutely right. Veganism has diet as a component, but at its core is a desire to limit harm to animals in every possible aspect.
If you eat only plants/mushrooms, but still buy leather shoes, down pillows, or wool socks - that’s not veganism, that’s just following a plant-based diet. The two concepts overlap, but they are distinct from each other.
This sort of pedantry also annoys and turns people away from the cause though. Typically when people say they’re vegan, they’re talking about their diet, and it’s easy to infer that based on context. I really hope you don’t go around browbeating self-professed vegans by going “nuh uh, you’re a liar, that’s a leather strap I see on your watch”
Not pedantry.
Veganism is an ethical position, distinct from carnism, which is also an ethical position.
That may not be how the majority use the term, but it is possible for a majority to be misinformed. If vegans yield the term and it comes to mean “mostly eats plants, sometimes eat fish or pig or perhaps bear”,
what should they call
“tries to minimize animal abuse as far as possible and practical”?
Wouldn’t the new term also be eventually devoured?
It also gets super annoying when people start learning the watered-down meaning.
The number of times people have asked “But you eat fish, right?” because pescatarians call themselves vegetarians instead of taking 3s to explain “It means I eat plants and fishes” is real annoying.
Labels with a specific meaning that have practical applications should not be muddied with use like that.
Lol, of course not. What would be the point of that? I can acknowledge someone being gifted a leather watch, or continuing to wear old leather shoes they bought from before they went vegan, as a vegan still trying their best.
But pointing out a verbal distinction on a chat board like Lemmy isn’t the same as calling people out in-person. The distinction matters, and this is an appropriate place to make that point. Harassing people for their choices is an entirely different scenario.
There isn’t really a verbal distinction though. “Vegan” is an overloaded word that has multiple definitions, and you can very validly use it to describe your diet. “Correcting” people by telling them they should say “plant based” instead is just pedantry.
The fact that most people don’t think about it critically doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explained and telling people who belong to a group that they can’t tell you what their group specifically is about is entitled and absurd.
Veganism is not a diet and there are a number of diets you may adopt while being vegan.
I can accept that the harm reductionism that Danielle is advocating for is good compared to the lack of restraint we have as a culture, but this does not make it vegan.
And the fact that you assume people “aren’t thinking critically” when they use a word in a way you don’t like says a lot about you. Makes you seem like the entitled one, actually.
If you can’t accept that saying “I eat vegan” or “I follow a vegan diet” is just as valid as someone saying “I’m vegan” in the context of taking about food/diets, you’re gonna have a tough time, because that’s just how our language is used.
I’m sure you can get away with telling trans people what they are without trans people or defining atheism without atheists. But sure. Sound off like the ignorant ass you are.
So when you go to a restaurant and they say “do you have any dietary restrictions”, you can reply “I’m Catholic” and they should guess what that means?
Vegan is an overloaded word that is both a diet and an ethos. Don’t try and restrict the language. You will not win.
The issue here is that veganism is regarded as a diet by the popular culture and fad dieters, not vegans. Your insistance that we not try to correct the record is like asking middle easterners not to set things straight when people assume all of them are Arabians or Muslim.
It is most commonly discussed in terms of diet, because that is something that is encountered most frequently. How often do you eat compared to how often you buy new shoes? A few times per day vs a few times per year?
Veganism most definitely goes beyond diet, even if food is by far the most common context .
All kinds of people call themselves a vegan without without actually being one.
It’s not a no true Scotsman because I’m using the actual definition for what veganism is, the one given by the vegan society. You’re making a category error here.
I will absolutely fight language when language is wrong. I have had several times in my life where I gave up the colloquial definitions that I’ve lived with in order to have my views more accurately reflect the words that members of specific communities use to define themselves. Otherwise I’d think that bisexuals only dated men and women, ace people are incapable of romantic attraction, all feminists hate men, and that trans people can’t be trans without clinically diagnoseable dysphoria.
Thanks for the luck, but I’m blocking you. Have a lovely day.
Because that’s plant-based plus bacon. Veganism is an ethos, not a diet.
Silly downvoters. You’re absolutely right. Veganism has diet as a component, but at its core is a desire to limit harm to animals in every possible aspect.
If you eat only plants/mushrooms, but still buy leather shoes, down pillows, or wool socks - that’s not veganism, that’s just following a plant-based diet. The two concepts overlap, but they are distinct from each other.
This sort of pedantry also annoys and turns people away from the cause though. Typically when people say they’re vegan, they’re talking about their diet, and it’s easy to infer that based on context. I really hope you don’t go around browbeating self-professed vegans by going “nuh uh, you’re a liar, that’s a leather strap I see on your watch”
this claim is made without evidence and can be dismissed without evidence
Not pedantry. Veganism is an ethical position, distinct from carnism, which is also an ethical position. That may not be how the majority use the term, but it is possible for a majority to be misinformed. If vegans yield the term and it comes to mean “mostly eats plants, sometimes eat fish or pig or perhaps bear”, what should they call
“tries to minimize animal abuse as far as possible and practical”? Wouldn’t the new term also be eventually devoured?
It also gets super annoying when people start learning the watered-down meaning.
The number of times people have asked “But you eat fish, right?” because pescatarians call themselves vegetarians instead of taking 3s to explain “It means I eat plants and fishes” is real annoying.
Labels with a specific meaning that have practical applications should not be muddied with use like that.
Lol, of course not. What would be the point of that? I can acknowledge someone being gifted a leather watch, or continuing to wear old leather shoes they bought from before they went vegan, as a vegan still trying their best.
But pointing out a verbal distinction on a chat board like Lemmy isn’t the same as calling people out in-person. The distinction matters, and this is an appropriate place to make that point. Harassing people for their choices is an entirely different scenario.
There isn’t really a verbal distinction though. “Vegan” is an overloaded word that has multiple definitions, and you can very validly use it to describe your diet. “Correcting” people by telling them they should say “plant based” instead is just pedantry.
The fact that most people don’t think about it critically doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explained and telling people who belong to a group that they can’t tell you what their group specifically is about is entitled and absurd.
Veganism is not a diet and there are a number of diets you may adopt while being vegan.
I can accept that the harm reductionism that Danielle is advocating for is good compared to the lack of restraint we have as a culture, but this does not make it vegan.
And the fact that you assume people “aren’t thinking critically” when they use a word in a way you don’t like says a lot about you. Makes you seem like the entitled one, actually.
If you can’t accept that saying “I eat vegan” or “I follow a vegan diet” is just as valid as someone saying “I’m vegan” in the context of taking about food/diets, you’re gonna have a tough time, because that’s just how our language is used.
I’m sure you can get away with telling trans people what they are without trans people or defining atheism without atheists. But sure. Sound off like the ignorant ass you are.
Uh I’m sorry, what the fuck are you talking about now? Did you respond to the right person?
So when you go to a restaurant and they say “do you have any dietary restrictions”, you can reply “I’m Catholic” and they should guess what that means?
Vegan is an overloaded word that is both a diet and an ethos. Don’t try and restrict the language. You will not win.
The issue here is that veganism is regarded as a diet by the popular culture and fad dieters, not vegans. Your insistance that we not try to correct the record is like asking middle easterners not to set things straight when people assume all of them are Arabians or Muslim.
Veganism is regarded as a diet by vegans. The diet kind of vegans. You’re doing a No True Scotsman.
You can certainly try to fight language. It doesn’t usually work. Good luck!
It is most commonly discussed in terms of diet, because that is something that is encountered most frequently. How often do you eat compared to how often you buy new shoes? A few times per day vs a few times per year?
Veganism most definitely goes beyond diet, even if food is by far the most common context .
It can, sure. It’s also a convenient way to tell the waitress you don’t eat animal products, even if you do wear leather.
mushrooms and yeast aren’t plants though, so it’s also also “fungus-based” as well