@janneke you've spend a post justifying *going vegan*. I heard you and I agree. Now, indulging in *highly active veganposting* (or whatever your preferred term might be, I'm open to suggestions) is not *going vegan* though, and, since it comes with completely different upsides and downsides attached, it thus warrants a different, largely separate justification.
@janneke I'm not gonna argue that *going vegan* is somehow a bad thing for the supermarket-enabled. The responsibility is direct enough, the benefits to the environments are real, and less suffering is better than more suffering. That makes *going vegan* good in my book.
Now, if a thing is good, why not promote the hell out of it then on socials? There are, surprisingly, quite a few reasons not to, and I'd like to stress two.
One, X being good doesn't mean X is automatically the right thing to do when there's an even better Y. Hypothetically, if a country next to you decides to indulge in rape, pillage and plunder over another one, boosting your military spending and investing in defence in advance might be a good thing to do. Once they recover from the previous invasion and turn their attention to you, your preparations might save your sovereignty, soften the blow or even outright deter them from invading. Problem is, there could be much better/cheaper/efficient options. Say, if joining forces from the get go, counterinvading and nipping the agressor's perverse ambitions in the bud saves two countries, making your soldiers dig trenches instead while patiently waiting for your turn to get wrecked is a both a good thing in your local framing and criminal negligence in the grand scheme of things.
Two, in case you're interested in comprehending what's my issue with *being overly noisy about going vegan*, note that it does not inherit the goodness of *going vegan*. Like, at all. Compare and contrast switching from cars to bikes with glueing yourself to asphalt. Starting a railway delivery company to compete with the government's inefficient monopoly versus cutting a top off a Christmas tree in an ecostunt. One is a direct action optimizing an objective goodness scalar grounded in reality, benefitting the common good no matter what opinions people hold about it. Another one is pretty much just pointlessly polasizing people and discrediting the public image of the first one. For an action that's supposedly done to get people to act, they're phenomenally countereffective, hurting the overall support of the underlying cause across all but the most loyal end of the fanbase spectrum. So, if you'll ever find yourself willing to defend *being overly noisy about going vegan*, defend it separately.
And in the likely case you won't, just post your heart out. =) An Internet stranger's views and priorities slightly differ from yours. Big deal.
other: Marketing this otherwise harmless practice as activism that's significantly useful at fixing the world is misleading. Get China to lower emissions and then shower for the rest of your life on a private jet if you want a meaningful impact, not just a headpat.
and
I don't care about animals: Demanding humane treatment of animals before humane treatment of humans is naturally insulting and alienating to humans. While it's a nice to fix later, putting it before, say, the rest 90% of the climate change reversal is attention diversion and sabotage. Not to mention direct instituonalized human-human harm. Ever seen those "all lives matters" cringe posters? To those of us with real problems veganism is this, but next level.
I'm gonna check the manipulatively named "I don't care about animals, torture them" (for it avoids the largely irrelevant, but divisive issue that, at the current state of affairs, discredits the green more than it helps) as the best fit out of four.
@janneke you're a smart and knowledgeable person and your tech comments really broaden my horizons and everything, but life is too short to watch vegans fantacise in public about somebody finally asking them a thing about being vegan.
If there will ever be a way to follow your tech wisdom that doesn't include iterating over your food preferences at nauseam, just @ me and specify one. And don't even dream that it's because you're vegan; were you a steak fetishist who plastered steaks all over my timeline, I'd unfollow even harder. Thank you.
@fluepke isn't your country supposed to provide you an ASCII-compatible legal name?
and yes, you want to stick to ASCII, trust me, and don't you dare call it racist until you learn to write every glyph that's out there in people's names. there are legacy names and there are ASCII names.
@janneke@csepp yes, that permanently non-ideal extensibility language that GNU religiously shoves wherever applicable or not is just a thing that's not ideal at the moment. it's a remnant of a dead cult that's worth avoiding just for this GNU blindly forcing it alone
@sotolf It's fine to misunderstand things, it's fine to be unwilling to understand things, even. But when you're making a scene out of it and start attacking people that didn't even participate in the original discussion, that doesn't put you in good light. What purpose does that serve you?