Comment on Top of the world, ma
selokichtli@lemmy.ml 6 hours agoI don’t go over my day calling people names. It’s not hard for me to call them as they want them to be called, and if I don’t know that, they are just people like me.
Carnist is a description of someone who has a meat-inclusive diet, other descriptions of people by what they can or cannot eat are e.g. vegan, lactose intolerant, celiac… It’s not a “name” you call someone, it’s a description of someone using a certain aspect of them relevant to the discussion.
A “name”, as in, something used to insult would be e.g. corpsemuncher, bloodmouth, cheesebreth &c.
It’s used as a pejorative. It’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I mean in the same way as “terf” I guess
So, nonvegan people?
The point behind not using “nonvegan” is that it frames carnists as "the normal"s and the “vegans” as the one who have “something special” going on. This is true with celiac and nonceliac, lactose intolerant and not lactose intolerant. But we argue that veganism, i.e. not killing if unnecessary, is the normal thing to do. That the only reason it doesn’t seem that way is because it got normalized through repetition and how widespread it is.
I guess a vegan would see the point in that. Vegans are normal in my book, as in they are people. If they didn’t call themselves vegans, I wouldn’t call them any particular way as a noun. If I needed to describe them, I’d say, “they are people who only eat vegetables”.
I get it, though, it’s a discourse battle derived from their moral views and expected ethics. It’s just they don’t come across as very approachable.
core@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
another user said it’s like how christians call non-believers sinners. that makes sense to me.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
The actual term is secular. The ones using sinner are the vegans of the Christian world.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 hours ago
So you’re saying the ones who call nonchristians “sinners” are correct?