Yeah fuck people who are against animal abuse and actually live out their principles.

Like you could at least say "preachy vegans". This is still problematic, because it ignores that everyone is preachy about issues they understand are immoral (we're all preachy anti-racists, anti-rapists, etc.)

But just saying "vegan" is wild.

I don't use tiktok, but some people have unusually based tiktok feeds. They can get direct footage from the genocide happening in Gaza, for example. I never get that recommended on YouTube, despite my very obvious socialist leanings, watching pro-Palestine content, etc.

This is the actual reason tiktok is being banned (if they don't sell) after the election. One of the largest lobbying groups in America, AIPAC, in probably the most well-funded policy categories (pro-Israel policies) backs most of Congress. They've determined tiktok has far too much influence on American youth, and has made the Israel/Palestine divide a young/old divide more-so than a left/right divide.

There's already a strong correlation between political leaning and age, which is problematic for the future of the fascist movement in America, but this issue falls outside the norm. You'll find a lot of young conservatives calling for an end to the needless killing of civilians. They won't call it a genocide because admitting Israel is a genocidal apartheid state is too far for them, but they can at least admit killing tens of thousands of children is not the right path here.

That kind of extremism (e.g not greenlighting any amount of culling of "human animals" Israel feels it needs to do) is unacceptable to the pro-Israel lobby, and they're not used to getting this kind of pushback from the American public.

As someone who has primarily used spaces, I still use the tab key. I sincerely hope most space users understand that your editor can expand your tab key into spaces, and people aren't genuinely going around spamming their spacebar 2->16 times for various indentation levels.

I don't think revolutions are any more likely to be fascist than socialist, historically though genuine socialist revolutions tend to lose, mostly because international capitalism can play very nicely with fascism, but not socialism.

However if the U.S underwent genuine socialist revolutions, it's an entirely different ballgame. The U.S has been the capitalist hand on the global stage for the better part of a century, constantly involved in overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of fascist dictatorships.

With that constant capitalistic/fascistic pressure gone, and better-yet replaced with genuine socialism, you'd get a very interesting situation. You'd have genuine socialism in the U.S (probably followed by at least some socialist revolution or socialist-inspired reforms in Europe), and then rhetorical socialism in the east, marred by material capitalism. The contradictions of the global stage would intensify, and I don't think there's any Chinese theory for development in an internationally socialist stage.

It's more counterproductive to be a non-vegan and try to convince nobody. I've had a good deal of success convincing people to go vegan. There are definitely vegans that are more successful than me, but you want to know who is always less successful? Non-vegans who rage online about vegans.

They should be the focus of our criticism, both in their own actions, and even as a broader strategy for enacting change.

Also I'd go as far to claim malapropisms don't exist. There is no "incorrect" use of a word. I'm not a prescriptivist. Language is about communicating ideas, and I know everything I've said would make sense to a great deal of people I know.

Maybe something doesn't make sense to you, maybe because we learned different definitions or usages of some word or phrase. Neither of us are wrong, we've just hit a language barrier. This is uncommon in English, but actually happens quite regularly in Europe even with two people speaking "the same language".

Our best example of this is going from American -> British English, but it can happen within the same "dialect" too.

Now there are obviously times where you try to adopt some language someone else has, and misunderstood it, so your usage aligns with essentially nobody else's (so the word has lost all function). I know that's not the case with what I'm saying because I've had these types of conversations with enough people who have understood me, but I'm fine humoring you, and still interested where the clash/miscommunication happened.

Feel free to correct me, most (or dare I say all) people aren't born omniscient, so sometimes we misuse words or phrases. I'm not sorry to admit that I'm sometimes incorrect about things, I used to be a staunch non-vegan for example.

what state is forcing a diet on you

The dog and cat meat trade prohibition act in 2018 in the U.S outlaws the slaughter and trade of dog/cat meat, in effect banning it as a diet.

I'd be more than happy with this exact same legislation being passed, but just for chickens/cows/pigs/etc. too. If you don't think that this is prohibiting a diet, sure. Let's just ban the slaughter/trade of cow/pig/chicken meat and say we found a good compromise.

It's impressive watching you repeatedly sidestep the main point, about how your view of dogs/cats is inconsistent with your view of pigs/cows/chickens.

I'm not a moral leader, I'm making points you repeatedly sidestep with ad-hominems. You can't articulate counter points, so you repeatedly attack me as an individual. It's awesome.

The really cool thing about actually every person I've met or heard of online, in person, etc. is anytime they're not vegan due to a health issue, they can't actually say what that health issue is.

People are genuinely more open about any other aspect of their health or mental state. People more readily open up about their schizophrenia or suicidal-level depression than whatever mysterious health issue "prevents veganism".

It's cool too, because there is actually no medical issue that prevents veganism. Every major health association has come out and said a vegan diet is suitable for literally all people at all stages of life. That might seem reductive, until you realize how many different vegan foods there are. You're likely able to eat beans, lettuce, and rice (and if not, surprise, there are other vegan foods), and those 3 things alone have sustained poor people for decades. Living in a rich western country makes this vastly easier too.

It's just funny hearing the broad, fake excuse because so many people use it when it's totally incoherent by the account of every major medical association.

A small sidenote too about your advice, I appreciate you trying to help, but I'm actually happy with how many people I've converted and continue to convert to veganism. I'd even bet good money that I've converted more people to veganism than you.

If you find a tactic that converts more than a few dozen people per year, let me know, but out of the two of us I probably have more actual real world experience converting people to veganism, given I'm the vegan activist, and you should consider that a vegan activist might know more about vegan activism than a non-vegan.

At least consider it as a possibility, my friend.

Knowledge isn't bad, and I'm aware of where I'm knowledgeable and where my limits are. I tend to be quite a bit more knowledgeable about philosophy than the average person, most people don't introspect or read about where truth comes from. They often don't even know or understand what an axiom is, even though they're foundational to how we live.

If that's all too much for you, you can literally just disregard my latter two paragraphs before you went into your defensive panic. I don't (usually) need to get into the idea of normative truths to justify veganism, because ironically we live in a country of "animal lovers", many of whom would happily literally kill dog abusers. I've unironically met non-vegans that advocate for the fucking death penalty for people who abuse dogs.

That amount of dissonance, to advocate for actual death for humans who abuse animals, while themselves literally paying for animal abuse, is sufficient to dismantle people's entire preconception of animal rights and worth. If we happened to live in a society without massive hypocrites, where people consistently held that abusing and torturing all "lesser" animals was okay, I'd have to get into more nuanced discussion about the nature of truth to help people get to veganism.

I understand this response, it must be emotionally hard to be challenged in such a concrete and decisive way, with no rational response available to you. I see this most commonly from carnists and religious people. In politics people don't tend to literally fall into "LALALALA" and plugging their ears like you have, but certain social conditioning (namely church and other forms of normalized structural violence) cause people to go into a defensive panic.

Good luck on learning anything in your life, honestly.