socialist guinea pigs

lutarcriarpoderpopular:

socialistguineapigs:

lutarcriarpoderpopular:

socialistguineapigs:

lutarcriarpoderpopular:

Vegetarianos.

Hey, I have an idea: Let’s not lump 4% of the population of the world, and 40% of India, together and generalize a false dichotomy that you must not care about humans in order to care about other animals.

My father became a vegetarian because he read “Diet for a Small Planet,” which is about food rights and distribution among humans. I stopped eating red meat for the same reason. I also care deeply about animal rights, and since their rights are deeply entangled with our own, I don’t see how anybody could ignore one and care about the other.

That would be dissociation on a very deep level. Dissociation is a severe psychological problem.

That was meant to describe a particular kind of middle class vegetarians that follow me. Correct me if I’m wrong please, but most vegetarians (at least that I know) are middle class reformists and very ignorant about politics in general. Their activism is only push their eating morals on everybody around them and it is both useless to the animal rights issue and somehow elitist.

If mainstream popular vegetarianism was this one that you mentioned I’d shut up and become a vegetarian myself.

I’m sorry but this kind of vegetarian that you mentioned is a minoruty unfornunately for the animal and human rights issue.

Most of the vegetarians I know are also political. If you wanted to talk about liberal vegetarians (similar to liberal feminists), then say “liberal vegetarians.” Just like it would be ridiculous to say that feminists don’t support intersectionality, it is ridiculous to say that vegetarians aren’t political. Liberal feminists don’t support intersectionality, and liberal vegetarians are apolitical.

Why does it have to be mainstream for you to become a vegetarian? Shouldn’t it be based on your beliefs, and if animal rights and human rights (relating to food justice and vegetarianism) fits your beliefs, you become a vegetarian?

I meant if that vegetarian activism was popular enough to reach me I’d join them. And it’s their premisse right? Making vegetarianism reach people. But the only veggies I see around are hippie middle classed teenagers. Not articulated organized militant activist groups, they are a drastical minority.

I’m just saying you’re defending a label wich has been appropriated by middle class liberals. Not even one of my brazilian veggie followers are into actvism I’m sure, and my post was meant to make rethink their political falacies. Vegetarianism today is not a social movement it’s a gastronimic trend. Radical environmantalists and animal rights actvists are the first to criticize them.

The word vegetarianism has lost it’s meaning why are you defending it?

You could use the same argument against communism. After all, liberals, conservatives, and right-Libertarians have co-opted the term to mean authoritarian state capitalism. Most people on this planet equate communism with fascism. Communism has lost its meaning. Why are you defending it?

Perhaps because there are still millions of people out there who know what communism really is. And the same with vegetarianism. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of vegetarians who are political. I refuse to give up on a label that so many radicals are proud of just because a bunch of ignorant liberals co-opted it.

How about anarchism? Even though the philosophy was thought up by radicals, a huge percentage of self-proclaimed anarchists are “anarcho”-capitalists. So should we give up on the term, just because it’s been co-opted?

If you don’t eat meat, you are vegetarian. That’s what it means. You can be highly political, and that can be your reason for being vegetarian. Nobody has any right to claim that “vegetarians,” as if they were a homogenous group, are apolitical or don’t care about social justice.

(Source: anonymous-lady)