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.
I should note, although it’s not directly relevant to your point, that “people who eat vegetables (instead of meat)” are also called vegetarian. The precise degree to which oppression of animals is tolerable was a contencious debate among vegetarians, which led to the creation of “The Vegan Society” to rally those that argued for “no oppression at all”. So even though dairy and egg farming require animal murder (to deal with the newborns considered a “byproduct”) vegetarians don’t object to those.
Vegans however take the idea that animals are thinking, feeling creatures to its logical conclusion and will argue for no animal products anywhere. No leather, no beeswax, no brushes with animal hair, no trips to the zoo, no pets and so on. It’s very much not just the diet, although that is of course a huge part of it.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 hours ago
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.
selokichtli@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
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.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
I should note, although it’s not directly relevant to your point, that “people who eat vegetables (instead of meat)” are also called vegetarian. The precise degree to which oppression of animals is tolerable was a contencious debate among vegetarians, which led to the creation of “The Vegan Society” to rally those that argued for “no oppression at all”. So even though dairy and egg farming require animal murder (to deal with the newborns considered a “byproduct”) vegetarians don’t object to those.
Vegans however take the idea that animals are thinking, feeling creatures to its logical conclusion and will argue for no animal products anywhere. No leather, no beeswax, no brushes with animal hair, no trips to the zoo, no pets and so on. It’s very much not just the diet, although that is of course a huge part of it.
selokichtli@lemmy.ml 7 hours ago
I know what a vegan is. It’s just I’m not a vegan myself to be going in-deep about their system of beliefs.