No, what are you talking about? I never said vegans are racist or fascist by default. I have nothing against veganism, so stop preaching to me.
All i said is that the concept of specieism is problematic, because it provides a link and entry point for connecting fascist ideology with veganism and there is examples of that. By eqauting the value of all animal life without any differnetiation, which is the ethical foundation of the “specieism-anti-speciiesm” ideology, you inadvertly open yourself to fascist dehumanising ideology. The framework is bound to fail by design, which is why it shouldnt be used. There is enough reasons to support veganism, without claiming dogs and man are equal.
Veganism without some kind of conceptual framework of speciesism is not veganism. Your assessment is backwards, not only is the concept of anti-speciesism not fascist; speciesism is foundational to racism, sexism, and ableism.
"When you are laying down the groundwork for what it means to be human, that is what it means to actually create human as a political identity because scientifically what we actually know is that human is just one of many species of animal on this planet, but we don’t actually think of ourselves as animals. I’ve talked to countless people who actually balk at the idea, who actually say to me well, I’ve never heard of that; of course humans are not animals. I’m like wow, you definitely did not pass seventh-grade biology. It’s like, you know, but this is just — this just illustrates to me how deeply entrenched these ideologies are. Because of course humans are animals but when we create human as a political identity, what we simultaneously do is create animal as a political identity and not just a species classification.
When we set up this binary, everyone who does not fall into the neat little perfect box of what’s considered human, they exist on the spectrum as an animal. You see the animalization of black people. You see the animalization of any marginalized group or any group that we desire to marginalize and that’s occurred several times throughout history. Yeah, you know, that’s one of the driving things that I want people to take away from these conversations or what I want people to understand. Human was actually never something that was meant to include — in particular — us as black people. Human was just a distinction that was meant to be — that was meant to include primarily people who were white, male, straight, land-owning, heterosexual, and had all of their abilities.
That’s really what we are — that’s really what we’re talking about and if you don’t meet these qualifications, if you don’t meet these criteria, then you are somehow considered to be less-than. That’s when the animalization starts to creep in. Yeah, this sort of aspirational humanity is something that I see people working toward over and over again in black liberation movements. We’re always talking about I am a human being. You know what? I deserve these rights as a human without ever critically interrogating what it means to be human or why human was considered someone — a person who is deserving of rights and not all of these other citizens that we share the planet with. That is one of our fundamental problems. Until we actually include other persons in our frame of reference of who is a marginalized community, I think that is going to continue to keep us back. Instead of actually embracing solidarity with other marginalized species, we instead continue to perpetuate the perceived exceptionalism of human and why that’s so good."
I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.
Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be “barbaric”, opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.
From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as “unethical” for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.
The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.
And just to be clear, i’m strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.
No, what are you talking about? I never said vegans are racist or fascist by default. I have nothing against veganism, so stop preaching to me.
All i said is that the concept of specieism is problematic, because it provides a link and entry point for connecting fascist ideology with veganism and there is examples of that. By eqauting the value of all animal life without any differnetiation, which is the ethical foundation of the “specieism-anti-speciiesm” ideology, you inadvertly open yourself to fascist dehumanising ideology. The framework is bound to fail by design, which is why it shouldnt be used. There is enough reasons to support veganism, without claiming dogs and man are equal.
Veganism without some kind of conceptual framework of speciesism is not veganism. Your assessment is backwards, not only is the concept of anti-speciesism not fascist; speciesism is foundational to racism, sexism, and ableism.
I disagree. While biologically humans are not qualitatively different from animals in biological terms there should be qualitatively different in ethical terms. Even if it is just on the basis of being of the same species, a pattern often found in social animal species too. The binary human-non human is necessary, as it creates a clear framework. The moment you elevate any animal to the same ethical value, by denying the concept of evaluating the value of life differently based on species, you inadvertly devalue human life.
Also it is a concept that i have only found in white western countries. Most people in the world cannot afford to think in such terms, as for them using animal products is a matter of survival. By saying it is unethical to consider human life more valueable by default, you open another attack angle, claiming those people would be “barbaric”, opening up discrimination. Incidently these people actually appreciate animal life and have a deep respect for animals, treating their livestock much better than most western societies do.
From Buddhists (e.g. normal buddhist people, not Monks for whom eating meat is forbidden), over Muslims, to indigenous people in South America. Animal cruelty is fundamentely prohibited in the religious and cultural frameworks, while acknowledging the necessity to kill and eat them. When hunting or slaughtering animals it is mandated to praise the animal and remind yourself of the preciousness of it, and acknowledge the gratefulness that it deserves for nourishing you. Attacking those people as “unethical” for not thinking in terms of anti-sepcieism would get you rejected and rightfully so.
The framework of anti-specieism can only exist as a reaction to the commodification of animal life in capitalist societies. And like the greed in capitalism it is over the top and counter productive. By elevating the necessary reaction to the missdevelopment in our societies to a fundamental ethical principle that fails in the life reality outside of our societies, anti-sepcieism is not only denying those life realities, it is also supremacist in itself and an insult to the many people that are much more cultured than capitalist societies, where this supposed principle is coming from.
And just to be clear, i’m strictly against cruelty animal cruelty and cruelty in general. But this should be a given and in the aforementioned cultured societies it is, without having to equate the value of animal life to human life. (Or other animal life in biological terms) But this is quite simple to integrate in a larger cultural framework without fetishized greed like in capitalism. If you only take what you truly need and feel respect and gratitude towards what nourishes you, it becomes obvious that animal cruelty is wrong, just as destroying nature for mining, or slash burning for tobacco, palm oil and other cash crops is wrong.