• WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    24 months ago

    Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”

    I don’t see the problem. Non-vegatarians/vegans are already called omnivores and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I wouldn’t expect them to go out of their way to label themselves as such unless they were saying something like “I’m an omniVore” as a Vore joke. Carnists is the term that’s used to be derogatory (although I think some weirdos who like to define themselves in opposition to vegans do call themselves that?). Likewise, “cissies” is a derogatory way to refer to the cis, but “cis” is just the neutral word used describe them. I wouldn’t expect people to go out of their way to proclaim their cisness, but getting upset that the term exists and people use it is mostly just a bit.

    • @syreus
      link
      English
      34 months ago

      We spend immense effort getting the world to listen and allow us to be identified by how We wish to be identified. To flip the script and say we get to determine how others are identified unapologetically does not parse.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        If someone wanted to identify their pronouns as “fuck n******”, I’m never going to respect their label or the person as a whole. If you make your whole identity about hating others, then you deserve to either totally ignored or mocked.

        • @syreus
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          That sort of situation is the exception, not the rule.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14 months ago

      I’ve seen them call omnivores “bloodmouths” now on lemmy because carnist wasn’t offensive enough I guess?