Vegan Theory Club
‘Against the cult of veganism’: Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans
seitanicpanic
9 months ago
•
100%
Of course, which is why they stated their focus was highly specific - especially given the nature of reddit - suggesting future research to better understand the ideology.
They acknowledged the limits of their study in section 4.5 titled "Limitations and future directions."
Vegan Theory Club
‘Against the cult of veganism’: Unpacking the social psychology and ideology of anti-vegans
seitanicpanic
9 months ago
•
50%
How so?
**Abstract** Despite the established health and ecological benefits of a plant-based diet, the decision to eschew meat and other animal-derived food products remains controversial. So polarising is this topic that anti-vegan communities — groups of individuals who stand vehemently against veganism — have sprung up across the internet. Much scholarship on veganism characterizes anti-vegans in passing, painting them as ill-informed, uneducated, or simply obstinate. However, little empirical work has investigated these communities and the individuals within them. Accordingly, we conducted a study using social media data from the popular platform, Reddit. Specifically, we collected all available submissions (∼3523) and comments (∼45,528) from r/AntiVegan subreddit users (N = 3819) over a five-year period. Using a battery of computerized text analytic tools, we examined the psychosocial characteristics of Reddit users who publicly identify as anti-vegan, how r/AntiVegan users discuss their beliefs, and how the individual user changes as a function of community membership. Results from our analyses suggest several individual differences that align r/AntiVegan users with the community, including dark entertainment, ex-veganism and science denial. Several topics were extensively discussed by r/AntiVegan members, including nuanced discourse on the ethicality and health implications of vegan diets, and the naturalness of animal death, which ran counter to our expectations and lay stereotypes of r/AntiVegan users. Finally, several longitudinal changes in language use were observed within the community, reflecting enhanced group commitment over time, including an increase in group-focused language and a decrease in cognitive processing. Implications for vegan-nonvegan relations are discussed.
**Abstract** Does the return of large carnivores affect voting behavior? We study this question through the lens of wolf attacks on livestock. Sustained environmental conservation has allowed the wolf (Canis lupus) to make an impressive and unforeseen comeback across Central Europe in recent years. While lauded by conservationists, local residents often see the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods, particularly those of farmers. As populists appear to exploit such sentiments, the wolf’s reemergence is a plausible source for far-right voting behavior. To test this hypothesis, we collect fine-grained spatial data on wolf attacks and construct a municipality-level panel in Germany. Using difference-in-differences models, we find that wolf attacks are accompanied by a significant rise in far-right voting behavior, while the Green party, if anything, suffers electoral losses. We buttress this finding using local-level survey data, which confirms a link between wolf attacks and negative sentiment toward environmental protection. To explore potential mechanisms, we analyze Twitter posts, election manifestos, and Facebook ads to show that far-right politicians frame the wolf as a threat to economic livelihoods.
www.youtube.com
A comedy released in the spring, so somewhat old news. From the movie's [website](https://www.coffeewarsfilm.com/): >Coffee Wars is committed to the health of the planet and the welfare of its occupants. The film is produced by VegGood Films, which invests in entertainment that supports human rights, civil rights, animal rights, and the preservation of the planet that is our host. > >All of the products used in the film are ethically sourced and vegan, including all "milk" and brands used in wardrobe, hair, and makeup. All animals featured in the film were rescued by the production team and are living happy lives at animal sanctuaries. > >VegGood Films has announced that 100% of all proceeds from the film will be donated to environmental and animal welfare charities.
**Abstract** Tropes of ‘effeminized’ masculinity have long been bound up with a plant-based diet, dating back to the ‘effeminate rice eater’ stereotype used to justify 19th-century colonialism in Asia to the altright’s use of the term ‘soy boy’ on Twitter and other social media today to call out men they perceive to be weak, effeminate, and politically correct (Gambert and Linné). This article explores tropes of ‘plant food masculinity’ throughout history, focusing on how while they have embodied different social, cultural, and political identities, they all serve as a tool to construct an archetypal masculine ideal. The analysis draws on a wide range of material from the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as a qualitative media analysis of #SoyBoy tweets posted between October 2010 and August 2018. It argues that, given that we live in a world steeped in ‘coloniality’ (Grosfoguel), it is no wonder that sexist and racist colonial-era tropes are alive and well today, packaged in a 21st-century digital culture form. In the digital politics of the alt-right, dairy milk has become a symbol for racial purity, connecting pseudo-scientific claims about milk, lactose tolerance, race, and masculinity. The term ‘soy boy’ provides a discursive counterpoint, relying heavily on colonial-era stereotypes of so-called ‘effeminate’ plant eating, often linked to Asian and other non-white cultures. The article concludes by arguing that for those working to reframe centuries-old norms and tropes related to race, sex, and humankind’s relationship to other animals, part of that work may take place online using the tools of social media and reappropriation of derogatory language. However, ultimately the power of social media to change norms and minds depends on the power of the social movements driving those changes; success is likely to only come through a robust anti-racist, color-conscious, and gender-conscious vegan movement (Harper)
seitanicpanic
9 months ago
•
100%
Our Hen House is great! They have such a wide variety of guests doing all types of work around the world.
I was not expecting this topic for Andersen 's next doc. I'm not religious myself, but I'm interested in seeing where they go with it.
Edited to add: interview begins about 00:20:26 What started with the question, “Is there a spiritual way to kill an animal?” has become the newest investigative documentary from Kip Anderson, of Cowspiracy fame, and Kam Waters. Join the journey to discover why so many religions who hold compassion as a sacred tenet turn a blind eye to animal suffering. Kip Andersen has changed the way the world looks at eating animals. After producing some of Netflix’s most-watched documentaries, Cowspiracy, What The Health, and Seaspiracy, working alongside the likes of Joaquin Phoenix and Leonardo DiCaprio as executive producers, Christspiracy is his biggest chapter yet. Kam Waters is a former gospel songwriter and musician for Sony and Interscope Records turned filmmaker. After growing up in the bible belt with a family lineage of gospel singers and a minister, Kam was entrenched in the church from the day he was born. It wasn’t until he realized how people use Christianity to justify animal abuse that he started this journey and, eventually, co-created this revolutionary documentary.
www.youtube.com
pattrice jones is an ecofeminist writer, scholar, activist and co-founder of VINE Sanctuary. About VINE, from their website: >VINE is an LGBTQ-led farmed animal sanctuary that works for social and environmental justice as well as for animal liberation. >We were the first sanctuary to rehabilitate roosters used in cockfighting. >Our solar-powered sanctuary is driven by an ecofeminist understanding of the intersections among the ways that humans hurt animals, each other, and the environment. More info: https://vinesanctuary.org/intersections
www.worldanimalprotection.ca
More info: [COP28 Declaration on Food and Agriculture](https://www.cop28.com/en/food-and-agriculture)
vegan
TIL marketing slogans such as, "Beef. It's What's For Dinner," are considered government speech in the US
seitanicpanic
10 months ago
•
100%
I wish lol. It seems like they hated how vague the slogan is and wanted the right to throw shade:
The promotions issued pursuant to the Beef Act are generic in character - meaning that, among other things, they do not distinguish between the grain-fed U.S. beef produced by respondents and the grass-fed beef produced abroad, which respondents regard as inferior. Respondents object to this simplistic "beef is good" message, which obscures the quality differences between U.S. and foreign beef.
Government speech has the ability to change with every election, the Supreme Court said:
If the citizenry objects, newly elected officials later could espouse some different or contrary position.
But with voters ignoring the issue because their government tells them eggs are incredible and asks them if they got milk? With them choosing not to advertise plant based foods as legitimate alternatives with the same pizzazz?
We're fighting industry messaging fed to us by our government, from our first school lunch all the way to senior meal programs, which serves to funnel money to the big corporations that control the market. The corporations use their money to bankroll politicians for more influence and more funding in the next farm bill. The cycle continues.
No matter what we buy or don't buy, they continue unfazed knowing 40% of food gets thrown away and that many of the animals they breed into existence are destined for the dumpster. They rake in cash regardless because our food system was built by and for corporations.
It's absurd and overwhelming, and it's time Uncle Sam and the Cowboys got a divorce.
firstamendment.mtsu.edu
**Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005)** >Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned that the government had a First Amendment right to promote its own message regarding beef. “The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government,” he wrote. “When, as here, the government sets the overall message to be communicated, and approves every word that is disseminated, it is not precluded from relying on the government speech doctrine merely because it solicits assistance from nongovernmental sources in developing specific messages.” >In the main dissent, Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and John Paul Stevens, wrote that “if government relies on the government speech doctrine to compel specific groups to fund speech with targeted taxes, it must make itself politically accountable by indicating that the content actually is a government message, not just the statement of one self-interested group the government is currently willing to invest with power.” More info: [What Farm Subsidies Are and Why They Matter, Explained](https://sentientmedia.org/why-are-farmers-subsidized/) [The Real Cost of Meat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA9f2JU5bRs) [14:14] [The Meatonomics Index](https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/)
Native Plant Gardening
6b evergreen ideas
seitanicpanic
10 months ago
•
100%
Native Plant Gardening
6b evergreen ideas
seitanicpanic
10 months ago
•
100%
Laurels (Kalmia genus) are evergreens with cool flowers. However, they're highly poisonous if eaten so not good around curious kids or animals.
https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=KAAN
Witch Hazel can take a few years to bloom and the leaves can look raggedy with all the insect action. But I did see a witch hat gall this summer which was really neat!
Spicebush could be an option. Black chokeberry too, it has awesome fall color.
www.youtube.com
From the description: In the wake of damning new evidence, the contribution of meat consumption to carbon emissions is at the forefront of global conversations. In this debate, fears of environmental damage and ethical concerns for animal rights clash with millions within the meat industry facing unemployment, religious and cultural traditions being condemned, and those with medical requirements risking disapproval for putting their health first. In light of these competing concerns, we must confront one of the most urgent issues of our time: should society finally move beyond meat? -------------------------------------- Proposition Speakers 1. Heather Mills - Former model, businesswoman, media personality, and activist. She launched VBites, a vegan food company, and plans to create a ‘vegan Silicon Valley’ in the North of England. 2. Professor Jeff McMahan - White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford and author of The Meat Eaters. He has been a vegetarian for more than 50 years and continues to query the ethics of killing animals. 3. Carol Adams - Writer, vegan feminist, and animal rights advocate. She is known for having written The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, and was inducted into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame in 2011. -------------------------------------- Opposition Speakers 1. Mikhaila Peterson - Canadian podcaster who runs the blog Don’t Eat That. She eats a meat-only ‘Lion Diet’ and claims this has helped her overcome autoimmune and mood disorders. 2. Peter Stevenson OBE - Chief Policy Advisor to Compasssion in World Farming and recipient of the RSPCA Lord Erskine Award. He was lead author of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation review of animal welfare legislation.
vimeo.com
Documentary about Murphy-Brown's (a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods) shitty practices in North Carolina. Website: https://www.smellofmoneydoc.com/ More info: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23003487/north-carolina-hog-pork-bacon-farms-environmental-racism-black-residents-pollution-meat-industry
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
**Discussion of racism, slavery, genocide, and cannibalism.**
www.youtube.com
Edited to add the description of the talk written by the lecturer, Syl Ko: >An ongoing debate in contemporary animal ethics and critical animal studies is whether membership in the species Homo sapiens is morally relevant. Some argue that taking into account the species of a being in moral deliberation is no different than taking into account any other morally arbitrary property of a being, such as their race or sex. (Singer) Others, however, resist the parallels drawn between speciesism and moral injustices such as racism and sexism. They argue that one’s membership in our species is not only a morally relevant fact to consider, but to insist otherwise is to threaten the nature of morality altogether. (Diamond, MacLean, Williams, Anderson) >In this presentation, I discuss another human-animal division absent from the debate, which concerns members of our species exclusively. This division establishes who is and who is not a “real human” in order to determine a social order in which members of the group “Human” are separate from and superior to the latter group, “Animal,” thus justifiably putting into place practices and institutions that ensure the former group’s dominance over the allegedly inferior others. (Deckha, Fanon, Ko&Ko, Wynter) What is under dispute in this division is not whether the affected individuals or groups are members of our species. Rather, the affected individuals or groups are recipients of inequitable treatment by virtue of their perceived failure to qualify as members of the social class, “Human.” >I argue that the latter division is, in fact, conceptually prior to the former. Thus, questions concerning the moral status of nonhuman animals ought to move away from discussions concerning species membership and to those concerning topics such as race, gender and class.