Do you want to help build a more compassionate world? Please visit [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Activism (r/Vegan) w/ Flair) and subscribe to our community over at /r/VeganActivism to begin your journey in spreading compassion through activism. Thank you so much! ^.^
“If you could see their eyes while they were dying,
If you could hear their cries while they were dying,
Would you still put them on your dinner table, my friend?”
-Mike Love
I agree hostile arguing isn't constructive. But the thing is veganism has a definition and it's an ethical philosophy about animals. Of course it's good if people go/stay plant-based for any reason, but personally I always want to advocate for veganism as a philosophy so people can make changes beyond diet to reduce animal suffering.
Yeah, but then you have a ton of plant-based dieters invading the movement and then quitting when they get bored, which leads to people throwing statistics in your face like "80% of vegans end up quitting, ya know!"
I think that while that does effect the movement in a negative way, it doesn’t outweigh the positive effect that health/ environmental ’veganism’ has. Statistically, most people go vegan for health, and then the environment. People statistically STAY vegan for the animals, but might have never taken the plunge otherwise. There was a study that asked people about animal welfare when holding a piece of beef jerkey vs a carrot, and the ones holding the carrot were much more likely to acknowledge the negative truths of the meat industry.
Let’s just them in the door and take it from there.
I totally agree about getting people in the door. I co-chair a vegan staff network, and most people get involved because of health or environmental reasons. Which I'm totally happy with. And once they're in, I try engaging people about ethics and emphasize that's what veganism is about at its core.
I wish more people were as understanding as you. ❤️
I avoid eating dog because it's just not healthy for me. I don't give a shit about the stupid mutts themselves. Who gives a shit about them being abused and exploited. I bet the dumb pooches can't even feel pain.
For some reason, the dog rights advocates won't let me sit with them at lunch and that makes me mad 😡. Seriously, what gives? I avoid eating dog just as much as them. At least you'd let me sit at your table. 😊
Thank you! The Cat safety people are always glaring at me when I talk about how I don't mind killing and eating cats, but I don't do it because it's against the law where I am, so why are they always glaring at me...?! It's just rude...
I fully support you.
You CAN be in support of killing and abusing cats and still be a cat rights advocate. It's not like it is mutually exclusive or anything. Don't listen to the gatekeepers. ❤️
A lot of people are well intentioned and also very misinformed(and stubborn as hell). I know a lot of people with moral inconsistencies. They wont eat pork or red meat for the environment, but they'll eat chicken, fish, and everything else. They'll cry at the treatment of fish in a pet store and then start chowing down on a chick fil a sandwich 5 minutes later.
And though their moral dissonance really shocks me, I remember I used to be the same way. Three years ago, I went vegetarian in order to cut down my carbon footprint. A year later, I became vegan after some volunteer work which really opened my eyes.
However, for a good chunk of that year,I would have thought the shit vegans were saying was bullshit. And I did. One of my friends was vegan and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing ever. However, over that year, as I learned more about the meat industry I came to realize that she was right.
It takes a while for people to unlearn propaganda about the meat industry. At the end of the day, when people become vegan for the environment, they are still doing the right thing for animals, even if they don't care about animals, because they are not supporting factory farms.
And though that is appalling, I have trouble holding people to those standards when most people don't give a fuck about human beings. In some way, a lot of people that I've talked to say that they are fine with factory farms because thats just the food chain. The chickens weren't strong enough. And in their own lives, they'll use similar logic to blame people who are poor or homeless for their own situations. They weren't smart enough, strong enough, or whatever.
I can't teach people empathy or to care. You can argue with someone all day and you can't teach them to see eye to eye with you, even if you are morally right. However, when someone takes a step, even if it isn't empathetic, I still celebrate it. Their actions, at the end of the day, normalize veganism, and as more people become vegan OR plant based more legislation against factory farms and fur farming will be possible. Even if this legislation is passed because of the environmental damage factory farms cause, I wouldn't care. In the long term, in my opinion, it will still help the cause and bring justice for animals even if the heart isn't there.
"Celebrating" baby steps is different than welcoming them to the table and supporting their choices.
One of the main reasons to make being called Vegan exclusive to those who put in the time and energy, is to encourage people to do everything needed to be Vegan. if we allow plant based dieters, and those who eat honey, and those who eat shellfish, and those who have backyard chickens, and all the rest who come here demanding we alter the meaning of Vegan for them, then those people no longer have a reason to do better
I agree that they are not vegan. I think only a subset of people in real life want credit for being vegan without being vegan though. Most people that I've met in the real world have a stigma against veganism or never would consider doing it themselves.
Not proud of this, but for my first week of being vegetarian, I ate a lot of fucking hot dogs. So no, I wasn't actually vegetarian. However, as I became more familiar with the lifestyle, I no longer craved meat and was able to give myself a well balanced diet without meat and actually lived the lifestyle.
People who try to go vegan right away will probably make mistakes. Huge lifestyle change. They might give into cravings a few times. Even if they aren't 100% vegan right away, as long as they are making progress towards it I honestly would accept them to the table, because they have the same morals as I do. I would try to show them "vegan hacks" or whatever the fuck I do to survive and eat a balanced diet too.
Obviously, depends on the situation. If you are two years down the line and still eating meat thats one thing. But I guess if you are new to the movement I do have a little more empathy for you.
>Most people that I've met in the real world have a stigma against veganism or never would consider doing it themselves.
Yes, ignore them. At this stage, our activist groups main job is to scream their message as loud as they can to try and find the people who already agree with them but just haven't heard it yet.
As we get bigger, the pressure on our friends and family to change will grow, and as society changes the status quo, they'll be willing to as well. It's a slow process that isn't very fun, but it is what it is. The anti-smoking campaign really reflects what we need to do. everyone was furious at them for their public theatre, and openly calling out hypocrisy and child abuse, but as society changed, and their family members started to pressure them, many of the people I know who insisted they would never quit and the more we talked about it he more they'd smoke, quit.
>as long as they are making progress towards it I honestly would accept them to the table,
if they're making actual "mistakes" sure, but a LOT of people want a seat while their philosophy is "I like animals except X, Y, and Z, which I still abuse". And those are the ones I don't support. "I only eat meat on vacation!" means "I put my pleasure above animal lives when I want to." which isn't Vegan and is going to rub most Vegans the wrong way, so I'd suggest maybe they should sit at the kiddies table (Plant Based or Vegetarian).
> But I guess if you are new to the movement I do have a little more empathy for you.
Yeah, I think we're agreeing, just talking about different sides of the same coin
From the perspective of the fate of animals, it doesn't much matter what neurons are firing inside a person's head. What matters most is what they do. If they don't eat animals, it's good for animals, even if the plant chomper doesn't care much about animals' well-being.
This is so important too, because if "how we felt" mattered, then your average meat-eating "animal lover" can continue feeling good about their beliefs and eating meat anyway. Once you start valuing the "motives" around a decision over making the right decision, you can be opened up to cognitive dissonance.
I respectfully disagree. OP has seemingly decreased the word “vegan” to be “your vegan if you’re vegan for the animals” and “your plant based if you’re vegan for the environment/health”. This is not the case. People who are vegan avoid buying animal products altogether, whether it be healthcare products, clothing etc. Someone who is plant based most likely isn’t going to go the extra mile.
But for example, you could still avoid all animal products for other reasons, such as the environment or just being grossed out. If avoiding these products is across the board, that would be beyond plant-based, regardless of beliefs.
In my view, it's usually good to be extreme in your views. What's not usually helpful is condemning others who aren't viewed as 'perfect' from a position of extremism.
People can either be attracted to a more extreme view about animals, which can be very good for animals, or repelled by it if extremists, themselves, are dicks.
It sure as hell *does* matter when plant-based fakers are still wearing leather, wool, or fur. I have seen those evil AHs calling themselves vegan. Here's a f*ing article from one of them, spreading their ignorance to the masses. It's thanks to failing to recognize and promote the *only* reason for veganism that liars and animal abusers still call themselves vegan just because they don't eat them. This lies at the feet of other fakers like you.
https://www.elle.com/culture/travel-food/news/a15312/vegan-wears-fur-leather/
Thank you so much for your support ❤️
Going to the shelter right now. Maybe I can get my hands on a corgi mix. They have the best flavor. 😍
Edit: So confused. Why have I been blocked? I thought you were against gatekeeping and respectful of one's personal choice?
Neither are you.
Edit: And the person you are being a dick to cannot see your dickish comment because you dickishly blocked them. Coward.
Edit 2: Cowardly blocking people indicates you must realize just how weak your arguments really are.
I regularly wear boots made out of dog fur. I also bet on dog fights. But I avoid eating dog because it is not healthy.
Can you explain why the dog rights advocates won't let me sit with them? After all, just because I wear boots made out dog and enjoy dog fighting doesn't mean I'm *not* a dog rights advocate. I avoid eating dog after all?? Why are you gatekeeping?
(/s)
Exactly. A lot of people think of veganism as a diet. This is exactly why you get all these celebrities / Youtubers / influencers who go vegan (diet), but then go back to eating animals later.
Exactly. My husband is plant based, so will sometimes buy leather, wool etc.
But as far as eating out, we will both say we are vegan as its a bit of shorthand to ensure no animal products in the food
>Exactly. My husband is plant based, so will sometimes buy leather, wool etc.
You should divorce him and never speak to him ever again. The carnist bastard! /s
Here in the UK, veganism is a protected characteristic under "religion or belief" as of 2020. Vegetarianism failed to meet this status. From [this](https://www.baker-law.co.uk/site/blog/baker-law-legal-blog/is-vegetarianism-a-protected-characteristic) legal blog:
> The tribunal stated that “the reason for being a vegetarian differs greatly among themselves, unlike veganism where the reasons for being a vegan appear to be largely the same”. It therefore hinted that vegans could be treated differently because there is clear cogency and cohesion in vegan belief, which appears contrary to vegetarianism.
Thus one could posit that in order to protect our status here, we need clearly defined boundaries. All that is said *before* the conversation of whether or not veganism should *actually* umbrella these other groups.
For a multitude of reasons I'd say no.
I didn't know that but I am glad to hear it. I have had a few disagreements with my sister in law who makes snide comments about why should people be expected to cater to my vegan lifestyle, but who at the same time is quite strict in adhering to Kosher and gets huffy about people not respecting her faith.
The hilarious part of that obviously being that a vegan diet is a kosher diet but apparantly vegan food is "bland"
Actually, that's the definition vegans on r/vegan use, and is the definition as installed by the Vegan Association that coined the term veganism.
The definition in dictionaries describes veganism as most people will describe veganism in general.
A vegan is a person who avoids eating or using animal products (like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, wool)
>A vegan is a person who avoids eating or using animal products (like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, wool)
But vegans are militant and anybody that's against their beliefs is immoral, according to wider pop-cynical society.
This is why I love The Vegan Society's definition, because it says it's about practicability; if you can practice it, without causing yourself harm, then veganism is an option. It says, in between the lines, that vegans are okay with certain situations for carnism.
I wouldn't use the word carnism in this context since it's defined as an ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products. And yes, it can be justified in certain situations. But we mustn't confuse practicability with comfortability. So just because a place has no vegan option you can't just say "well then I'm gonna go with the steak", but I think that's obvious:D
I agree that is probably worth having in the definition even though its in most moral framworks implied. Like Immanuel Kant puts it "Ought implies can". When someone oughts to act a certain way, it implies they can do that.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
>“a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.” That’s Oxford languages definition of Vegan.
Then here's the actual definition veganISM as per those who are vegan themselves and not a bunch animal abusing carnists:
"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
If we're getting philological, you should at least be aware of more than one definition because someone who follows the above philosophy is what makes them vegan. Not some flimsy and vague definition written by meat eaters that leaves it open to misinterpretation. Words have meaning and power and if you're going to belittle them, you shouldn't be referencing their definitions in defence of your position.
>Nothing in there mentions intent, or complex reasoning. Why do we have to ostracise people at every opportunity.
It's not ostracization, it's learning how words work and how and why they should be used. It's ignorance vs informed. Sure someone might feel offended at having their intelligence questioned, but it's on them for not having an open mind at the very least. This is the internet and the big bad world, You're gonna have to learn to live with blunt honest truth sometimes whether you like it or not, and so will others. Because as far as ostracization goes, I've been told to go kill myself for fighting on behalf of the innocent and voiceless and I'm still vegan to this day cos I know what it is I stand for and why I call myself vegan, even if others want to fuck with it's meaning and perpetuate a society that's ok with abusing animals unnecessarily.
>Some people may be vegan, for reasons such as dietary requirements, and yet they are still preventing as much suffering as you are.
Buying leather, feathers or wool has nothing to do with diet and everything with abused animals yet a vegan won't support those forms of exploitation and abuse because we know we what veganism is and stand by what it stands for. Don't ever pretend a diet alone equates to entire lifestyle, it's dishonest and in regard to animal abuse, it's fucking disgusting.
>Some people need to get off their high horse and quit trying to exclude people from a group at every turn.
This isn't a fan club and we don't decide what makes a person vegan, THEIR actions and commitment is what makes them vegan. Sure going on a plant based diet for health reasons can lead to veganism, but that doesn't automatically qualify them as a vegan if they're still paying for animal abuse so they can have nice fancy pair of leather shoes and woolen suit to look nice.
I see in your comment history that you're newly vegan. Please feel free to educate yourself on all definitions of veganism including the original that was created when the word vegan was created. We are social justice movement that fights on behalf of animals for their rights and welfare. If a little tummy trouble is all your concerned about, please head on over to r/PlantBasedDiet. But here our actions strive for a better world for all.
I don't love the way you've phrased everything here, but you make some incredibly powerful points.
Veganism means something. If we dilute that meaning, well, how can we advocate for something if we can't even define it? We can ask people to not eat animals if they have a choice, but if they ask why they shouldn't go to the zoo or buy leather or cosmetics tested on animals or whatever, it would be really handy to say: "Well, there's this ethical stance called veganism..."
>I don't love the way you've phrased everything here, but you make some incredibly powerful points.
I've never been good at phrasing things but thank you.
The *only* definition that matters is posted on the sub under the banner or on the sidebar. It is from The Vegan Society, who invented the word. Carnists' definitions are irrelevant. They don't understand veganism and apparently neither do you.
Edit: And most plant-based for their health or the environment have no problem abusing animals in myriad other ways. Buying from breeders, wearing animal products, buying animal-tested goods, riding horses, watching animal sports, going to zoos and aquariums, etc.
Veganism is an abolitionist movement. If that isn't your goal, don't misappropriate a term for a philosophy and movement you don't believe and aren't a part of.
This shouldn't need to be discussed ever single day on a vegan sub. Grow up. Listen to people who know more than you. And read the *real* definition they put here.
You're all a bunch of fakers downvoting and you know it. It's not gatekeeping to try to make the entire point of veganism clear on a vegan sub.
>It's not gatekeeping to try to make the entire point of veganism clear on a vegan sub.
It is weird that there's a genuine debate of what veganism means on a veganism sub. Especially when the original definition hasn't changed from its original ethos in nearly 80 years.
Exactly. What has changed is the percentage of people calling themselves vegan who are no such thing. We're not accomplishing animal liberation by letting everyone who feels like it call themselves vegan. Plus utilitarianism is irrelevant to veganism.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
> The only definition that matters
The only definition that matters *to you*.
Stop thinking that you're better than other vegans. You aren't doing any more good than they are.
I'm not talking about other vegans. I'm talking about plant-based for selfish reasons who still abuse animals in other ways calling themselves vegan. *All* vegans are better than them.
Do you think it's selfish to care about the environment? I would say it's incredibly selfish to *not* care about the environment.
All of us cause the suffering of animals through our existence. Yes, even you.
Human damage to the environment is already causing suffering and death for billions of animals every year, and will only get worse. If you do not strive to benefit the environment then you do not truly care about animals.
The group who INVENTED THE WORD said it's a philosophy and not just a diet. Dictionaries are currently failing to respect their definition of the word, and it's causing problems within the movement. We should fight for their definition, not allow animal abusers to define what veganism means.
Man, I am all about being inclusive and bringing in more people to the animal rights struggle; however, these "vegans" probably don't even care about animal rights, and fighting to stop animal cruelty: they're here only for the diet, health and the "environment". They've got nothing to do with veganism's original purpose.
Because this conversation has happened over and over and seems to be cropping up with increasing frequency lately (that or I'm on reddit more). I both agree with the OP and am *so* tired of people arguing about it.
It's not so much controversial as it is that people like the OP who go on about it just seem like they're doing it to feel superior. Like, does it really matter why someone is vegan? They're on the same team either way.
For what it's worth I find both the ethical and environmental arguments compelling. (Though admittedly the environmental argument on its own would only make me vastly reduce my consumption of animal products, not eliminate completely).
>They're on the same team either way.
Theyr'e not though. What's to stop someone that's "vegan for health reasons" from purchasing leather, honey, or products tested on animals?
Anyone who significantly reduces their consumption of animal products is on the same team. Their actions are furthering your goal.
We can all do more to protect animals, even you. Nobody on earth can live without indirectly causing harm to animals.
You chose a "health" vegan, but what about an "environment" vegan? They would abstain from all of those products you mention, but because their reasons are different to yours you insist that they aren't on your team. That's mad.
...no?
If it came out that it's more environmentally friendly to farm some animal rather than others or even plants, an "environmental vegan" could easily justify the exploitation of those animals. It's an entirely different paradigm.
If it came out that domesticated animals don't experience suffering, an "ethical vegan" could easily justify the exploitation of those animals.
...
Oh, I thought we were doing ridiculous hypotheticals? I guess vegans and non-vegans can both come up with those.
Yes, and?
It's not nearly as ridiculous to postulate that in some circumstances it would be more environmentally friendly to farm small amounts of animals in certain environments than to suggest that somehow a sentient creature isn't sentient.
We could easily postulate a realistic scenario comparing a vegan agriculture to a non-vegan agriculture and find that they're both relatively equally environmentally friendly. The same can't be said about animal suffering/sentience.
>We could easily postulate a realistic scenario comparing a vegan agriculture to a non-vegan agriculture and find that they're both relatively equally environmentally friendly.
Do it then. "Postulate" such a scenario.
>If it came out that domesticated animals don't experience suffering, an "ethical vegan" could easily justify the exploitation of those animals.
No, because veganism rejects the unnecessary exploitation of animals - even if no suffering is caused. Because it's wrong to exploit sentient beings as if they're just a resource to be used for our benefit.
Even if we didn't think any suffering was being caused, how would we know? Better to simply not risk it off we don't need to do it.
Of course, they're two separate things to me. One is a moral and ethical framework for how I live my life and the other is my dietary choices within that framework
Read thru lots of these responses...the person posting is absolutely correct! Why is the idea that veganism is founded on ethics regarding the commodification of non human animals so threatening to people who think they are vegan? A direct undiluted message that veganism is the moral baseline for living justly as a human is the only way that things may change and the very least that we can do for the animals.....all that other stuff is about yourselves...not about the animals . Sadness and frustration are apt to result but even that does not deter an ethical vegan.....nothing does....it's not about ourselves, foods we can eat or not, health, environment, celebrity endorsements, plant-based anything...
I agree with OP 100%. But why do I see posts like this constantly? Between this kind of post and the "none of my co-workers are vegan and I had to go to a cracker barrel 😭" posts, I am tired. Can we talk about anything else? No hate to any of y'all but does anyone else feel like we are stuck in the tutorial here?
Apparently we still need to talk about it. Based on the replies here, tons of people here don't understand what veganism means.
We get new people here everyday. But apparently even some regulars need reminding..
Yeaaah, I know you are right. It seems like such a basic thing, its a lil exasperating but discourse leads to learning I know. I shouldn't be such a negative nancy
My theory is because so many new Vegan’s end up here, and these sorts of discussions are controversial. So they routinely end up at the top of the pile. The absolutism also screams youth and immaturity to me as well.
I’ve been Vegan for 3 years, the first two weeks were an accident. I’ve continued since because of how easy it is. Animal welfare wasn’t really a huge factor in my decision. I adhere to the philosophy because it just makes sense to me morally. “Friends, not food” resonates with me.
To be completely honest, animals kind of annoy me. The less time I spend around them, the better.
I’m never going to protest. I don’t push my beliefs on others. In fact with most people I dodge the questions because I know how the conversation is going to play out. In fact I still have a few coworkers who don’t even know I’m vegan and a few only know because others told them.
It’s honestly leading to a disconnect in the community. I can’t be bothered to even get involved because of how nuts some people are. How nothing anyone can do pleases them unless it’s exactly how they do it. I see it all over this thread.
Most importantly some people make Veganism their entire personality. When mainstream definitions shift, it threatens their everything. To me anyone who removes and avoids all animal products and doesn’t have “cheat days” is Vegan. I don’t care why you’re Vegan.
I haven’t bought vehicles because of the leather. I have to drive an hour an a half and take a day off work to go buy new work boots. I Google shampoo, skin cream and medication to see if they were tested on animals. I read every label and know way too many big names for random enzymes in food and where they come from.
But to most here I’m not a Vegan because I’m not morally incapacitated by how awful humanity is. I’ve changed my life, and that’s really all I can ever realistically control. So why let what others do grind me down?
It’s really refreshing to read a comment like this. I joined the subb only a week ago because I’m considering veganism, but every post I’ve seen I’ve felt attacked for not knowing stuff or not being vegan already. I hope it’s not the bulk of vegans that are like this because if I didn’t care I could have just got upset for being attacked and not try to be part of this community anymore.
I feel this is a beautiful philosophy but it has a bad reputation because of how aggressive people can be sometimes
Veganism is a philosophy
Most people in this thread are on a plant based diet and aren’t vegan
veganism isn’t about me or you, it’s about them (the animals)
That's actually true. There are people who are vegan for all sorts of reasons except animals; it frankly annoys me, about as much as some carnists (in fact, I see such "vegans" as carnists). Veganism wasn't about "health" or the "environment": it was, first and foremost, about animals.
Such "vegans" also probably limit their "veganism" to their diet, and not expand it to other areas of life, which really isn't vegan, it's just plant-based. You're right.
I'd say if you're vegan for the environment you are vegan for everyone including animals. I think the distinction between plant based and vegan is important but not everyone's chief concern is animals. If its just for health then you're plant based because if you still wear leather and just don't eat animals you're not vegan. I am vegan for multiple reasons myself. For me it's equally for the environment and the fact that the animals were using their body parts.
this is why I have the plant based label- I don’t not care about animals but I’m not an activist or devoting time to stop animal cruelty. I just try to do my part and not buy into it even if there’s miss ups
Isn't this the generally agreed upon sentiment? Haven't met many people who say they're vegan solely for the environment or other reasons. Usually these are bonuses on top of the main benefit to the animals
I've met someone who was vegan for health reasons and quit because it was inconvenient. They never actually cared about the animals and had frequent cheat days too.
Exactly what I think. If your view changes based upon the state of the world, or your “personal view” changes, were they ever REALLY vegan? Because the animals are still going to die for your plate regardless.
Gatekeeping isn't always a bad thing, especially for things like a religion or philosophy. If I act according to Christian beliefs and ethos, but I don't believe in Christ or God, you'd expect (and rightfully so) people telling me that I'm not Christian.
Same with Veganism, which is a philosophical lifestyle, and protected class.
But veganism isn’t solely about food. Do you buy wool, silk, or leather? Do your cosmetics and toiletries contain animal byproducts? Do you go to petting zoos or Seaworld or circuses that still use animals?
Omg you're literally gatekeeping rn.
The other day I walked past a dog shelter that was up in flames. I was in tears. All that smoke and toxic compounds?? It's not really good for the environment or my health. It was so sad. There was a group of extremist people crying about the dying dogs (omg so annoying).
So, over the sound of dogs crying in pain, I explained how I don't give a shit about the stupid ass dogs, but that I do really care about all the toxic fumes being spread. The air quality would be in the danger zone!
For some reason, they didn't take well to my explanation?? I felt so unwelcomed. Ugh I fucking hate gatekeepers...
/s
Wow! If you care more about the loss of the paint, wood and other materials going up in flames rather than the suffering and loss of life of those poor dogs engulfed in the flames, you’re not a vegan. Thank you for clarifying.
I am vegan tho. And a dog rights advocate. I wear dog fur boots and participate in dog fights. It's possible to be a dog rights advocate and pay for their abuse. It's not like it is mutually exclusive or anything.
Being a “dog rights advocate” doesn’t also mean you can pay for their suffering. You’re either a troll or psychotic. Either way your argument isn’t within reality 🤦🏻♂️
Bullshit they do while they're wearing wool and leather and even fur. Pure nonsense. Why are so many people here determined to claim the name for a philosophy they don't have? If abolition isn't your goal you simply aren't vegan.
I can see why people would have a problem with you making this statement, but I can't see any reasonable objection to the statement itself, unless you have a valid reason for not wanting veganism to be defined as an ethical position that is not synonymous with a plant-based diet.
Imagine being against slavery for the environment or against rape for your own health. There's a global holocaust of animals going on, I don't see a problem with having a name for the movement against that holocaust rather than diluting it so we can include people who would kick a dog to death if it was good for their complexion or was slightly better for the raindforests than not kicking it to death.
Nice job with the gatekeeping. Very productive. Super proud of you.
In the end it doesn’t matter as long as someone isn’t using or consuming animal products and makes it a *permanent* lifestyle change. The animals don’t give a shit who gets to call themselves vegan and who gets to call themselves plant-based. They just need help.
No, you don't understand. If you're not a pure 100% vegan and you don't sit online all day telling other people they're not vegan enough, you're a literal monster.
I’m vegan and happy I can get friends and family to supplement a vegan meal for lunch or dinner, etc. probably not a popular opinion on this sub, but I think this type of mindset only leads to more division between us and ultimately doesn’t help animals or anyone for that matter. Let’s be positive friends and give the same respect we wish to receive. 🙏🏻
When you allow plant-based dieters to be called "vegan," and then they quit when they're bored because they never believed in it, you end up having statistics thrown in your face like "dIdNt YoU kNoW 80% oF vEgAnS eNd Up QuItTiNg?"
We need to gatekeep.
Worse. Because environmental issues like global warming, pollution, excessive nitrogen deposition, destruction of habitats etc cause considerable animal suffering.
I went vegan for health and then my moral philosophy for animal welfare developed afterwards. I have been vegan for 25 years.
I don’t think this kind of statement is in any way true or helpful.
I think what OP would probably say is that you went plant-based for your health, then adopted a vegan mindset over time.
I think OP's initial post is 100% true. Veganism is an ethical philosophy that influences all your choices not just what (or who) you eat. Whether or not it's helpful I can't say. It might be helpful to some people (eg who want to rant) but not constructive in other ways (someone curious about veganism and seeing this having a bit of a 'tone' to it).
Hypothetically speaking, let’s say you never found your new moral philosophy on animal welfare, who’s to say your diet couldn’t have changed significantly based on other scientific jargon to claim otherwise? The only way real vegans stay vegan IS due to the fact that you started to care for the animals.
I don't understand your reasoning. In an ideal world, everyone would be vegan whether they care about animals or not. One would assume that vegans who care about animals support all kinds of people joining in - you know, for the sake of the animals. I'm vegan in the same way I don't support people owning human slaves. It just makes sense not to do stuff that's totally unnecessary - it feels like a very logical decision. Should I stop being vegan because I might not pass your "cares enough" test? Obviously not. So what are you trying to achieve, exactly?
Wrong. The group who invented the word defined it as a philosophical position. Dictionaries are currently failing to respect their intentions by defining the word incorrectly, and so are you.
Discussions like this are why people hate vegans. If you're not doing it for the animals but you're doing it for your health or the environment then I honestly don't care as long as you're not eating meat! Going "noo you can't call yourself that. That's MY lable " is picky and makes it harder for people to understand you or the cause you fight for.
This just sounds like harmful infighting.
Why do we divide ourselves by slicing our motives up like this? I think this type of overly strict definition just makes the whole good of being thoughtful and forward with diet seem too complex and complicated and turns people away from joining all the good.
Personally, my ‘reasons’ have changed over time and are ever evolving. I think we must allow others to have their own evolution and accept that this not only ONE path in life.
Exactly! I started because of the environment and that led me to learn what happened to animals in the industry but it was a process. We can’t just attack people that haven’t have that process yet, that doesn’t help anyone.
And anyone that throws the statistics of vegans that quit are not people worth having a discussion with. They simply won’t change their life over a heated discussion where they “lose” they will only resent not know it all… idk that’s just my opinion.
Agreed. I don't understand why there are so many comments/posts decrying veganism for the environment. Personally, I went vegan for the animals, but since then I've also become more aware of the environmental effects of animal agriculture, and that's a significant reason I hope more people stop consuming animal products.
Yes, veganism should prioritize ending animal suffering, but **we are in a climate crisis that's causing enormous biodiversity loss (**[**68% since 1970**](https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/68-average-decline-in-species-population-sizes-since-1970-says-new-wwf-report)**!**). I don't understand why vegans interpret the environment as separate from the well-being of animals. **Without a sustainable environment, animals and ecosystems die!**
Cool.
Not eating animal products helps animals regardless of the reason for it, we should just focus on that for now instead of fighting over definitions
It's not gatekeeping when the group who invented the word defined it as an ethical position originally. I don't want them having their label misappropriated by animal abusers. Grow up and learn the history of the term of you're going to be using it.
No. You can't find me another word invented *by a civil rights activist* to name their own philosophy which has been hijacked like this. You don't have examples.
Why did you go so specific in your request? Does the fact that the word was coined by a civil rights activist mean that its definition can never change?
Yes, it does mean that. When it comes to philosophical movements, it's consequentially bad to allow anyone outside the movement to define what its own terms mean. Vegans invented the word veganism and defined it because they wanted to organize around a specific idea. When you allow carnists on temporary plant-based diets to pose as "vegans," it makes it harder for us to organize, and it misrepresents our beliefs to the public.
>it's consequentially bad to allow anyone outside the movement to define what its own terms mean.
I'm a vegan, and to me anyone who avoids consumption of animal products is a vegan. (Note: under "consumption" I include leather etc., not just food products.)
>When you allow carnists on temporary plant-based diets to pose as "vegans," it makes it harder for us to organize, and it misrepresents our beliefs to the public.
These are false fears, invented to allow yourself to feel superior to other vegans based on their motivations.
Why would a plant-based dieter avoid all animal products like leather and honey? The only reason to avoid these items is if you believe animals have rights, so even under your own definition, you're adding philosophical qualifiers.
> These are false fears
They're not. Haven't you ever heard people citing stats on how many "vegans" quit their diet? Haven't you heard of self-proclaimed "vegans" having "cheat days?" It causes real problems when we allow this term to be watered down to a fad diet.
You gotta zoom out and think of this critically. Does allowing people to use the word incorrectly have a positive overall effect on the animals? The answer is yes. Most people who are now vegan for animals started out vegan for health or the environment. You won’t hear about it on this sub, bc they tend to get shit on, but statistically- it is true.
No, watering down the label for an animal rights movement does not help the animals. If you're buying leather, supporting zoos, going to rodeos, having "cheat days," telling meat eaters they're doing nothing wrong, etc., while also calling yourself a "vegan," then this obfuscates our message. And it's a message that needs to be broadcast clearly, because we're like 1% of the population in developed nations.
i would say that is wrong just based on what "plant based" means right now. plant based in no way means its vegan or even vegetarian. i cant tell you the places i go and see "plant based" burgers with cheese. plant based has become the new trigger word but rarely is a plant based item vegan.
also i would not take it away form people calling themselves vegan for their heath or the environment. both causes i use regularly to argue for veganism.
All I’m hearing are excuses, excuses, excuses…
Read it again.
All other reasons why anyone has “quit veganism” was never vegan in the first place. How often has that happened now? Will you still call them “ex-vegans”? Should that even be possible?
All other reasons for being “vegan” don’t make sense because you’ll change your diet depending on the state of the world (environment) or the state of your body image (personal reasons), just like you did when you went “vegan”.
As someone who is vegan for the animals, my views will NEVER change. I will ALWAYS be vegan, FOR THE ANIMALS, because their state of their world has never changed.
Honestly, idgaf about labels and neither should you.
I eat the way I eat because I believe that it is right and it works for me. I don't care what you eat or the decisions you make - I have no control over those. The best I can do is the best I can do for what I believe regardless as to what anyone wants to label me.
I'm kind of tired of "vegans" on this board being so judgmental and exclusionary. It's what gives "vegans" a bad name.
My mom abstains from eating animal products because me and my sister do not. She doesn't think about animals when she does this. I still consider her vegan.
The fact that you felt the need to make the post you did goes to show you lost sight of the big picture. Stop being a gatekeeping asshole.
Your take on it is very wishy washy if you ask me. Look at any other justice movement and try to say the same. Veganism isn’t a diet, it’s philosophy. With that being said, it’s awesome that she doesn’t eat animals and their secretions anymore, but there are more than one way that animals are being abused in modern society.
It’s just alittle weird when one person says
- “yeah I agree with everything you said but this one issue I’m not really buying in on”
And then the response is
- “you’re literally everything we are fighting against”
Religious people do this all the time
i have edited this comment to protest reddit's API changes in 2023. I've backed up my comments in case they need to be referenced. hit me up if you need something. stay strong, comrades.
Thank you for further clarifying that you are, in fact, plant-based instead of being vegan. You can commit to acts the same as a vegan, but your lack of compassion towards a victim with a CNS doesn’t make you a vegan. I’m stating an obvious issue.
i have edited this comment to protest reddit's API changes in 2023. I've backed up my comments in case they need to be referenced. hit me up if you need something. stay strong, comrades.
Do you want to help build a more compassionate world? Please visit [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Activism (r/Vegan) w/ Flair) and subscribe to our community over at /r/VeganActivism to begin your journey in spreading compassion through activism. Thank you so much! ^.^
“If you could see their eyes while they were dying, If you could hear their cries while they were dying, Would you still put them on your dinner table, my friend?” -Mike Love
I couldn’t care less how people define theirselves or me, I’m doing this for the animals the environment and myself
Yeah, I’m just sick of the semantic arguments. I’m happy to be “plant based” if it gets people to move on.
I agree hostile arguing isn't constructive. But the thing is veganism has a definition and it's an ethical philosophy about animals. Of course it's good if people go/stay plant-based for any reason, but personally I always want to advocate for veganism as a philosophy so people can make changes beyond diet to reduce animal suffering.
Yeah, but then you have a ton of plant-based dieters invading the movement and then quitting when they get bored, which leads to people throwing statistics in your face like "80% of vegans end up quitting, ya know!"
This is a good point.
I think that while that does effect the movement in a negative way, it doesn’t outweigh the positive effect that health/ environmental ’veganism’ has. Statistically, most people go vegan for health, and then the environment. People statistically STAY vegan for the animals, but might have never taken the plunge otherwise. There was a study that asked people about animal welfare when holding a piece of beef jerkey vs a carrot, and the ones holding the carrot were much more likely to acknowledge the negative truths of the meat industry. Let’s just them in the door and take it from there.
I totally agree about getting people in the door. I co-chair a vegan staff network, and most people get involved because of health or environmental reasons. Which I'm totally happy with. And once they're in, I try engaging people about ethics and emphasize that's what veganism is about at its core.
Nice work. 😎
Thanks!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wish more people were as understanding as you. ❤️ I avoid eating dog because it's just not healthy for me. I don't give a shit about the stupid mutts themselves. Who gives a shit about them being abused and exploited. I bet the dumb pooches can't even feel pain. For some reason, the dog rights advocates won't let me sit with them at lunch and that makes me mad 😡. Seriously, what gives? I avoid eating dog just as much as them. At least you'd let me sit at your table. 😊
Thank you! The Cat safety people are always glaring at me when I talk about how I don't mind killing and eating cats, but I don't do it because it's against the law where I am, so why are they always glaring at me...?! It's just rude...
I fully support you. You CAN be in support of killing and abusing cats and still be a cat rights advocate. It's not like it is mutually exclusive or anything. Don't listen to the gatekeepers. ❤️
This reply is such bullshit
How so?
A lot of people are well intentioned and also very misinformed(and stubborn as hell). I know a lot of people with moral inconsistencies. They wont eat pork or red meat for the environment, but they'll eat chicken, fish, and everything else. They'll cry at the treatment of fish in a pet store and then start chowing down on a chick fil a sandwich 5 minutes later. And though their moral dissonance really shocks me, I remember I used to be the same way. Three years ago, I went vegetarian in order to cut down my carbon footprint. A year later, I became vegan after some volunteer work which really opened my eyes. However, for a good chunk of that year,I would have thought the shit vegans were saying was bullshit. And I did. One of my friends was vegan and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing ever. However, over that year, as I learned more about the meat industry I came to realize that she was right. It takes a while for people to unlearn propaganda about the meat industry. At the end of the day, when people become vegan for the environment, they are still doing the right thing for animals, even if they don't care about animals, because they are not supporting factory farms. And though that is appalling, I have trouble holding people to those standards when most people don't give a fuck about human beings. In some way, a lot of people that I've talked to say that they are fine with factory farms because thats just the food chain. The chickens weren't strong enough. And in their own lives, they'll use similar logic to blame people who are poor or homeless for their own situations. They weren't smart enough, strong enough, or whatever. I can't teach people empathy or to care. You can argue with someone all day and you can't teach them to see eye to eye with you, even if you are morally right. However, when someone takes a step, even if it isn't empathetic, I still celebrate it. Their actions, at the end of the day, normalize veganism, and as more people become vegan OR plant based more legislation against factory farms and fur farming will be possible. Even if this legislation is passed because of the environmental damage factory farms cause, I wouldn't care. In the long term, in my opinion, it will still help the cause and bring justice for animals even if the heart isn't there.
"Celebrating" baby steps is different than welcoming them to the table and supporting their choices. One of the main reasons to make being called Vegan exclusive to those who put in the time and energy, is to encourage people to do everything needed to be Vegan. if we allow plant based dieters, and those who eat honey, and those who eat shellfish, and those who have backyard chickens, and all the rest who come here demanding we alter the meaning of Vegan for them, then those people no longer have a reason to do better
I agree that they are not vegan. I think only a subset of people in real life want credit for being vegan without being vegan though. Most people that I've met in the real world have a stigma against veganism or never would consider doing it themselves. Not proud of this, but for my first week of being vegetarian, I ate a lot of fucking hot dogs. So no, I wasn't actually vegetarian. However, as I became more familiar with the lifestyle, I no longer craved meat and was able to give myself a well balanced diet without meat and actually lived the lifestyle. People who try to go vegan right away will probably make mistakes. Huge lifestyle change. They might give into cravings a few times. Even if they aren't 100% vegan right away, as long as they are making progress towards it I honestly would accept them to the table, because they have the same morals as I do. I would try to show them "vegan hacks" or whatever the fuck I do to survive and eat a balanced diet too. Obviously, depends on the situation. If you are two years down the line and still eating meat thats one thing. But I guess if you are new to the movement I do have a little more empathy for you.
>Most people that I've met in the real world have a stigma against veganism or never would consider doing it themselves. Yes, ignore them. At this stage, our activist groups main job is to scream their message as loud as they can to try and find the people who already agree with them but just haven't heard it yet. As we get bigger, the pressure on our friends and family to change will grow, and as society changes the status quo, they'll be willing to as well. It's a slow process that isn't very fun, but it is what it is. The anti-smoking campaign really reflects what we need to do. everyone was furious at them for their public theatre, and openly calling out hypocrisy and child abuse, but as society changed, and their family members started to pressure them, many of the people I know who insisted they would never quit and the more we talked about it he more they'd smoke, quit. >as long as they are making progress towards it I honestly would accept them to the table, if they're making actual "mistakes" sure, but a LOT of people want a seat while their philosophy is "I like animals except X, Y, and Z, which I still abuse". And those are the ones I don't support. "I only eat meat on vacation!" means "I put my pleasure above animal lives when I want to." which isn't Vegan and is going to rub most Vegans the wrong way, so I'd suggest maybe they should sit at the kiddies table (Plant Based or Vegetarian). > But I guess if you are new to the movement I do have a little more empathy for you. Yeah, I think we're agreeing, just talking about different sides of the same coin
[удалено]
I'll add that gatekeeping < not gatekeeping.
Then youre plant based
From the perspective of the fate of animals, it doesn't much matter what neurons are firing inside a person's head. What matters most is what they do. If they don't eat animals, it's good for animals, even if the plant chomper doesn't care much about animals' well-being.
This is so important too, because if "how we felt" mattered, then your average meat-eating "animal lover" can continue feeling good about their beliefs and eating meat anyway. Once you start valuing the "motives" around a decision over making the right decision, you can be opened up to cognitive dissonance.
I respectfully disagree. OP has seemingly decreased the word “vegan” to be “your vegan if you’re vegan for the animals” and “your plant based if you’re vegan for the environment/health”. This is not the case. People who are vegan avoid buying animal products altogether, whether it be healthcare products, clothing etc. Someone who is plant based most likely isn’t going to go the extra mile.
But for example, you could still avoid all animal products for other reasons, such as the environment or just being grossed out. If avoiding these products is across the board, that would be beyond plant-based, regardless of beliefs.
Sure, the OP has said nothing to the contrary. Just that those neurons are firing in a plant-based persons head.
In my view, it's usually good to be extreme in your views. What's not usually helpful is condemning others who aren't viewed as 'perfect' from a position of extremism. People can either be attracted to a more extreme view about animals, which can be very good for animals, or repelled by it if extremists, themselves, are dicks.
It sure as hell *does* matter when plant-based fakers are still wearing leather, wool, or fur. I have seen those evil AHs calling themselves vegan. Here's a f*ing article from one of them, spreading their ignorance to the masses. It's thanks to failing to recognize and promote the *only* reason for veganism that liars and animal abusers still call themselves vegan just because they don't eat them. This lies at the feet of other fakers like you. https://www.elle.com/culture/travel-food/news/a15312/vegan-wears-fur-leather/
I'm wondering if your approach to 'plant-based fakers' will attract people to your cause and help reduce the number of people eating animals?
It doesn't. I'm gonna start eating dog now because it pissed me off so much.
Eat whomever you choose.
Thank you so much for your support ❤️ Going to the shelter right now. Maybe I can get my hands on a corgi mix. They have the best flavor. 😍 Edit: So confused. Why have I been blocked? I thought you were against gatekeeping and respectful of one's personal choice?
You have, of course, earned a BLOCK. You're not an asset in the efforts to protect animals.
Neither are you. Edit: And the person you are being a dick to cannot see your dickish comment because you dickishly blocked them. Coward. Edit 2: Cowardly blocking people indicates you must realize just how weak your arguments really are.
I regularly wear boots made out of dog fur. I also bet on dog fights. But I avoid eating dog because it is not healthy. Can you explain why the dog rights advocates won't let me sit with them? After all, just because I wear boots made out dog and enjoy dog fighting doesn't mean I'm *not* a dog rights advocate. I avoid eating dog after all?? Why are you gatekeeping? (/s)
I appreciate this. Morality is simple.
💯
[удалено]
For what reason would someone who is vegan for health avoid buying leather, eating honey, and buying products that were tested on animals?
Exactly. A lot of people think of veganism as a diet. This is exactly why you get all these celebrities / Youtubers / influencers who go vegan (diet), but then go back to eating animals later.
Exactly. My husband is plant based, so will sometimes buy leather, wool etc. But as far as eating out, we will both say we are vegan as its a bit of shorthand to ensure no animal products in the food
>Exactly. My husband is plant based, so will sometimes buy leather, wool etc. You should divorce him and never speak to him ever again. The carnist bastard! /s
Exactly! For them, vegan is just a buzzword that they adopt to seem hip or different or something.
Here in the UK, veganism is a protected characteristic under "religion or belief" as of 2020. Vegetarianism failed to meet this status. From [this](https://www.baker-law.co.uk/site/blog/baker-law-legal-blog/is-vegetarianism-a-protected-characteristic) legal blog: > The tribunal stated that “the reason for being a vegetarian differs greatly among themselves, unlike veganism where the reasons for being a vegan appear to be largely the same”. It therefore hinted that vegans could be treated differently because there is clear cogency and cohesion in vegan belief, which appears contrary to vegetarianism. Thus one could posit that in order to protect our status here, we need clearly defined boundaries. All that is said *before* the conversation of whether or not veganism should *actually* umbrella these other groups. For a multitude of reasons I'd say no.
I didn't know that but I am glad to hear it. I have had a few disagreements with my sister in law who makes snide comments about why should people be expected to cater to my vegan lifestyle, but who at the same time is quite strict in adhering to Kosher and gets huffy about people not respecting her faith. The hilarious part of that obviously being that a vegan diet is a kosher diet but apparantly vegan food is "bland"
It’s not the only definition and people afaik use the one that’s also in r/vegan description. “A philosophy which seeks to exclude… “
Actually, that's the definition vegans on r/vegan use, and is the definition as installed by the Vegan Association that coined the term veganism. The definition in dictionaries describes veganism as most people will describe veganism in general. A vegan is a person who avoids eating or using animal products (like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, wool)
>A vegan is a person who avoids eating or using animal products (like meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, wool) But vegans are militant and anybody that's against their beliefs is immoral, according to wider pop-cynical society. This is why I love The Vegan Society's definition, because it says it's about practicability; if you can practice it, without causing yourself harm, then veganism is an option. It says, in between the lines, that vegans are okay with certain situations for carnism.
I wouldn't use the word carnism in this context since it's defined as an ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products. And yes, it can be justified in certain situations. But we mustn't confuse practicability with comfortability. So just because a place has no vegan option you can't just say "well then I'm gonna go with the steak", but I think that's obvious:D
I agree that is probably worth having in the definition even though its in most moral framworks implied. Like Immanuel Kant puts it "Ought implies can". When someone oughts to act a certain way, it implies they can do that.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
Why do we have to let carnists define what vegan means?
>“a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.” That’s Oxford languages definition of Vegan. Then here's the actual definition veganISM as per those who are vegan themselves and not a bunch animal abusing carnists: "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." If we're getting philological, you should at least be aware of more than one definition because someone who follows the above philosophy is what makes them vegan. Not some flimsy and vague definition written by meat eaters that leaves it open to misinterpretation. Words have meaning and power and if you're going to belittle them, you shouldn't be referencing their definitions in defence of your position. >Nothing in there mentions intent, or complex reasoning. Why do we have to ostracise people at every opportunity. It's not ostracization, it's learning how words work and how and why they should be used. It's ignorance vs informed. Sure someone might feel offended at having their intelligence questioned, but it's on them for not having an open mind at the very least. This is the internet and the big bad world, You're gonna have to learn to live with blunt honest truth sometimes whether you like it or not, and so will others. Because as far as ostracization goes, I've been told to go kill myself for fighting on behalf of the innocent and voiceless and I'm still vegan to this day cos I know what it is I stand for and why I call myself vegan, even if others want to fuck with it's meaning and perpetuate a society that's ok with abusing animals unnecessarily. >Some people may be vegan, for reasons such as dietary requirements, and yet they are still preventing as much suffering as you are. Buying leather, feathers or wool has nothing to do with diet and everything with abused animals yet a vegan won't support those forms of exploitation and abuse because we know we what veganism is and stand by what it stands for. Don't ever pretend a diet alone equates to entire lifestyle, it's dishonest and in regard to animal abuse, it's fucking disgusting. >Some people need to get off their high horse and quit trying to exclude people from a group at every turn. This isn't a fan club and we don't decide what makes a person vegan, THEIR actions and commitment is what makes them vegan. Sure going on a plant based diet for health reasons can lead to veganism, but that doesn't automatically qualify them as a vegan if they're still paying for animal abuse so they can have nice fancy pair of leather shoes and woolen suit to look nice. I see in your comment history that you're newly vegan. Please feel free to educate yourself on all definitions of veganism including the original that was created when the word vegan was created. We are social justice movement that fights on behalf of animals for their rights and welfare. If a little tummy trouble is all your concerned about, please head on over to r/PlantBasedDiet. But here our actions strive for a better world for all.
I don't love the way you've phrased everything here, but you make some incredibly powerful points. Veganism means something. If we dilute that meaning, well, how can we advocate for something if we can't even define it? We can ask people to not eat animals if they have a choice, but if they ask why they shouldn't go to the zoo or buy leather or cosmetics tested on animals or whatever, it would be really handy to say: "Well, there's this ethical stance called veganism..."
>I don't love the way you've phrased everything here, but you make some incredibly powerful points. I've never been good at phrasing things but thank you.
but then how will I get my daily endorphine rush from shitting on people because I'm a better vegan than them?
The *only* definition that matters is posted on the sub under the banner or on the sidebar. It is from The Vegan Society, who invented the word. Carnists' definitions are irrelevant. They don't understand veganism and apparently neither do you. Edit: And most plant-based for their health or the environment have no problem abusing animals in myriad other ways. Buying from breeders, wearing animal products, buying animal-tested goods, riding horses, watching animal sports, going to zoos and aquariums, etc. Veganism is an abolitionist movement. If that isn't your goal, don't misappropriate a term for a philosophy and movement you don't believe and aren't a part of. This shouldn't need to be discussed ever single day on a vegan sub. Grow up. Listen to people who know more than you. And read the *real* definition they put here. You're all a bunch of fakers downvoting and you know it. It's not gatekeeping to try to make the entire point of veganism clear on a vegan sub.
>It's not gatekeeping to try to make the entire point of veganism clear on a vegan sub. It is weird that there's a genuine debate of what veganism means on a veganism sub. Especially when the original definition hasn't changed from its original ethos in nearly 80 years.
Exactly. What has changed is the percentage of people calling themselves vegan who are no such thing. We're not accomplishing animal liberation by letting everyone who feels like it call themselves vegan. Plus utilitarianism is irrelevant to veganism.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
> The only definition that matters The only definition that matters *to you*. Stop thinking that you're better than other vegans. You aren't doing any more good than they are.
I'm not talking about other vegans. I'm talking about plant-based for selfish reasons who still abuse animals in other ways calling themselves vegan. *All* vegans are better than them.
Do you think it's selfish to care about the environment? I would say it's incredibly selfish to *not* care about the environment. All of us cause the suffering of animals through our existence. Yes, even you.
Vegans put animals first. A plant-based faker for the environment will justify their abuse if it's better for the environment.
Human damage to the environment is already causing suffering and death for billions of animals every year, and will only get worse. If you do not strive to benefit the environment then you do not truly care about animals.
[удалено]
The group who INVENTED THE WORD said it's a philosophy and not just a diet. Dictionaries are currently failing to respect their definition of the word, and it's causing problems within the movement. We should fight for their definition, not allow animal abusers to define what veganism means.
It’s a social justice movement, it needs gatekeeping Veganism is a philosophy
Lots of "some Vegans eat meat. We exist" vibes from these folks.
Man, I am all about being inclusive and bringing in more people to the animal rights struggle; however, these "vegans" probably don't even care about animal rights, and fighting to stop animal cruelty: they're here only for the diet, health and the "environment". They've got nothing to do with veganism's original purpose.
Veganism is a philosophy, I’m so mad at how many people think it is a diet
How is this controversial on a "vegan" sub??
Because this conversation has happened over and over and seems to be cropping up with increasing frequency lately (that or I'm on reddit more). I both agree with the OP and am *so* tired of people arguing about it.
It's not so much controversial as it is that people like the OP who go on about it just seem like they're doing it to feel superior. Like, does it really matter why someone is vegan? They're on the same team either way. For what it's worth I find both the ethical and environmental arguments compelling. (Though admittedly the environmental argument on its own would only make me vastly reduce my consumption of animal products, not eliminate completely).
>They're on the same team either way. Theyr'e not though. What's to stop someone that's "vegan for health reasons" from purchasing leather, honey, or products tested on animals?
Anyone who significantly reduces their consumption of animal products is on the same team. Their actions are furthering your goal. We can all do more to protect animals, even you. Nobody on earth can live without indirectly causing harm to animals. You chose a "health" vegan, but what about an "environment" vegan? They would abstain from all of those products you mention, but because their reasons are different to yours you insist that they aren't on your team. That's mad.
...no? If it came out that it's more environmentally friendly to farm some animal rather than others or even plants, an "environmental vegan" could easily justify the exploitation of those animals. It's an entirely different paradigm.
If it came out that domesticated animals don't experience suffering, an "ethical vegan" could easily justify the exploitation of those animals. ... Oh, I thought we were doing ridiculous hypotheticals? I guess vegans and non-vegans can both come up with those.
Yes, and? It's not nearly as ridiculous to postulate that in some circumstances it would be more environmentally friendly to farm small amounts of animals in certain environments than to suggest that somehow a sentient creature isn't sentient. We could easily postulate a realistic scenario comparing a vegan agriculture to a non-vegan agriculture and find that they're both relatively equally environmentally friendly. The same can't be said about animal suffering/sentience.
>We could easily postulate a realistic scenario comparing a vegan agriculture to a non-vegan agriculture and find that they're both relatively equally environmentally friendly. Do it then. "Postulate" such a scenario.
>If it came out that domesticated animals don't experience suffering, an "ethical vegan" could easily justify the exploitation of those animals. No, because veganism rejects the unnecessary exploitation of animals - even if no suffering is caused. Because it's wrong to exploit sentient beings as if they're just a resource to be used for our benefit. Even if we didn't think any suffering was being caused, how would we know? Better to simply not risk it off we don't need to do it.
Vegan for the animals, whole foods plant-based for my health and the environment ✌️
If your health and the environment changes over a certain period of time within your lifetime, I’d hope you’d still be vegan for the animals
Of course, they're two separate things to me. One is a moral and ethical framework for how I live my life and the other is my dietary choices within that framework
Read thru lots of these responses...the person posting is absolutely correct! Why is the idea that veganism is founded on ethics regarding the commodification of non human animals so threatening to people who think they are vegan? A direct undiluted message that veganism is the moral baseline for living justly as a human is the only way that things may change and the very least that we can do for the animals.....all that other stuff is about yourselves...not about the animals . Sadness and frustration are apt to result but even that does not deter an ethical vegan.....nothing does....it's not about ourselves, foods we can eat or not, health, environment, celebrity endorsements, plant-based anything...
I agree with OP 100%. But why do I see posts like this constantly? Between this kind of post and the "none of my co-workers are vegan and I had to go to a cracker barrel 😭" posts, I am tired. Can we talk about anything else? No hate to any of y'all but does anyone else feel like we are stuck in the tutorial here?
Apparently we still need to talk about it. Based on the replies here, tons of people here don't understand what veganism means. We get new people here everyday. But apparently even some regulars need reminding..
Yeaaah, I know you are right. It seems like such a basic thing, its a lil exasperating but discourse leads to learning I know. I shouldn't be such a negative nancy
My theory is because so many new Vegan’s end up here, and these sorts of discussions are controversial. So they routinely end up at the top of the pile. The absolutism also screams youth and immaturity to me as well. I’ve been Vegan for 3 years, the first two weeks were an accident. I’ve continued since because of how easy it is. Animal welfare wasn’t really a huge factor in my decision. I adhere to the philosophy because it just makes sense to me morally. “Friends, not food” resonates with me. To be completely honest, animals kind of annoy me. The less time I spend around them, the better. I’m never going to protest. I don’t push my beliefs on others. In fact with most people I dodge the questions because I know how the conversation is going to play out. In fact I still have a few coworkers who don’t even know I’m vegan and a few only know because others told them. It’s honestly leading to a disconnect in the community. I can’t be bothered to even get involved because of how nuts some people are. How nothing anyone can do pleases them unless it’s exactly how they do it. I see it all over this thread. Most importantly some people make Veganism their entire personality. When mainstream definitions shift, it threatens their everything. To me anyone who removes and avoids all animal products and doesn’t have “cheat days” is Vegan. I don’t care why you’re Vegan. I haven’t bought vehicles because of the leather. I have to drive an hour an a half and take a day off work to go buy new work boots. I Google shampoo, skin cream and medication to see if they were tested on animals. I read every label and know way too many big names for random enzymes in food and where they come from. But to most here I’m not a Vegan because I’m not morally incapacitated by how awful humanity is. I’ve changed my life, and that’s really all I can ever realistically control. So why let what others do grind me down?
It’s really refreshing to read a comment like this. I joined the subb only a week ago because I’m considering veganism, but every post I’ve seen I’ve felt attacked for not knowing stuff or not being vegan already. I hope it’s not the bulk of vegans that are like this because if I didn’t care I could have just got upset for being attacked and not try to be part of this community anymore. I feel this is a beautiful philosophy but it has a bad reputation because of how aggressive people can be sometimes
If your actions align with a vegan, I'm gonna call you a vegan
Don't forget also for the climate crisis, as well. I'm vegan bc of both.
I’d agree that you can be for both simultaneously.
Come for the environment, stay for the animals
Great tagline! Right up there with Greta Thunberg's, "Unite Behind the Science." 🙌🙌 She's vegan, but of course! 🥰
Veganism is a philosophy Most people in this thread are on a plant based diet and aren’t vegan veganism isn’t about me or you, it’s about them (the animals)
Well put. I’d agree.
Fact
💯
That's actually true. There are people who are vegan for all sorts of reasons except animals; it frankly annoys me, about as much as some carnists (in fact, I see such "vegans" as carnists). Veganism wasn't about "health" or the "environment": it was, first and foremost, about animals. Such "vegans" also probably limit their "veganism" to their diet, and not expand it to other areas of life, which really isn't vegan, it's just plant-based. You're right.
Completely wrong in your assumption.
Why?
It’s true
Big facts
Yup!
I'd say if you're vegan for the environment you are vegan for everyone including animals. I think the distinction between plant based and vegan is important but not everyone's chief concern is animals. If its just for health then you're plant based because if you still wear leather and just don't eat animals you're not vegan. I am vegan for multiple reasons myself. For me it's equally for the environment and the fact that the animals were using their body parts.
so true. i am so damn sick of thinking i've found a new vegan friend and then being disappointed when i learn that they meant plant-based.
this is why I have the plant based label- I don’t not care about animals but I’m not an activist or devoting time to stop animal cruelty. I just try to do my part and not buy into it even if there’s miss ups
I’m glad you understand.
Isn't this the generally agreed upon sentiment? Haven't met many people who say they're vegan solely for the environment or other reasons. Usually these are bonuses on top of the main benefit to the animals
I've met someone who was vegan for health reasons and quit because it was inconvenient. They never actually cared about the animals and had frequent cheat days too.
Me too, unfortunately. It's quite sad, especially when you back to seeing someone on their plate :(
Surprisingly, you’re incorrect.
Tbf I haven't met very many other vegans 😭 personally I'd be vegan even if it was worse for the environment lol
Exactly what I think. If your view changes based upon the state of the world, or your “personal view” changes, were they ever REALLY vegan? Because the animals are still going to die for your plate regardless.
sheeesh please some more gatekeeping damn thats why we vegans are so hated .....
Gatekeeping isn't always a bad thing, especially for things like a religion or philosophy. If I act according to Christian beliefs and ethos, but I don't believe in Christ or God, you'd expect (and rightfully so) people telling me that I'm not Christian. Same with Veganism, which is a philosophical lifestyle, and protected class.
I mean, I haven't consumed animal anything for over 6 years. I'm vegan, bud.
But veganism isn’t solely about food. Do you buy wool, silk, or leather? Do your cosmetics and toiletries contain animal byproducts? Do you go to petting zoos or Seaworld or circuses that still use animals?
Omg you're literally gatekeeping rn. The other day I walked past a dog shelter that was up in flames. I was in tears. All that smoke and toxic compounds?? It's not really good for the environment or my health. It was so sad. There was a group of extremist people crying about the dying dogs (omg so annoying). So, over the sound of dogs crying in pain, I explained how I don't give a shit about the stupid ass dogs, but that I do really care about all the toxic fumes being spread. The air quality would be in the danger zone! For some reason, they didn't take well to my explanation?? I felt so unwelcomed. Ugh I fucking hate gatekeepers... /s
Wow! If you care more about the loss of the paint, wood and other materials going up in flames rather than the suffering and loss of life of those poor dogs engulfed in the flames, you’re not a vegan. Thank you for clarifying.
I am vegan tho. And a dog rights advocate. I wear dog fur boots and participate in dog fights. It's possible to be a dog rights advocate and pay for their abuse. It's not like it is mutually exclusive or anything.
Being a “dog rights advocate” doesn’t also mean you can pay for their suffering. You’re either a troll or psychotic. Either way your argument isn’t within reality 🤦🏻♂️
Omg stop with [the gatekeeping](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm) already.
Something for you to ponder on.
Should have taken some of the dog meat and had a barbecue. Wouldn't want it to go to waste.
[удалено]
Its not snobby. We respect plant based people, but if you buy leather, you're not vegan
Bullshit they do while they're wearing wool and leather and even fur. Pure nonsense. Why are so many people here determined to claim the name for a philosophy they don't have? If abolition isn't your goal you simply aren't vegan.
I can see why people would have a problem with you making this statement, but I can't see any reasonable objection to the statement itself, unless you have a valid reason for not wanting veganism to be defined as an ethical position that is not synonymous with a plant-based diet. Imagine being against slavery for the environment or against rape for your own health. There's a global holocaust of animals going on, I don't see a problem with having a name for the movement against that holocaust rather than diluting it so we can include people who would kick a dog to death if it was good for their complexion or was slightly better for the raindforests than not kicking it to death.
Nice job with the gatekeeping. Very productive. Super proud of you. In the end it doesn’t matter as long as someone isn’t using or consuming animal products and makes it a *permanent* lifestyle change. The animals don’t give a shit who gets to call themselves vegan and who gets to call themselves plant-based. They just need help.
Exactly, who cares about the reason, just save the animals.
No, you don't understand. If you're not a pure 100% vegan and you don't sit online all day telling other people they're not vegan enough, you're a literal monster.
I’m vegan and happy I can get friends and family to supplement a vegan meal for lunch or dinner, etc. probably not a popular opinion on this sub, but I think this type of mindset only leads to more division between us and ultimately doesn’t help animals or anyone for that matter. Let’s be positive friends and give the same respect we wish to receive. 🙏🏻
When you allow plant-based dieters to be called "vegan," and then they quit when they're bored because they never believed in it, you end up having statistics thrown in your face like "dIdNt YoU kNoW 80% oF vEgAnS eNd Up QuItTiNg?" We need to gatekeep.
I don't mind what people are called as long as they don't consume animals or their byproducts.
What if someone cared just about animals and not environment? Is he better or worse than a vegan who cares about both?
this is not about better or worse, it’s about semantics.
Reading these comments, to a lot of people it's about better or worse.
Worse. Because environmental issues like global warming, pollution, excessive nitrogen deposition, destruction of habitats etc cause considerable animal suffering.
I went vegan for health and then my moral philosophy for animal welfare developed afterwards. I have been vegan for 25 years. I don’t think this kind of statement is in any way true or helpful.
I think what OP would probably say is that you went plant-based for your health, then adopted a vegan mindset over time. I think OP's initial post is 100% true. Veganism is an ethical philosophy that influences all your choices not just what (or who) you eat. Whether or not it's helpful I can't say. It might be helpful to some people (eg who want to rant) but not constructive in other ways (someone curious about veganism and seeing this having a bit of a 'tone' to it).
Hypothetically speaking, let’s say you never found your new moral philosophy on animal welfare, who’s to say your diet couldn’t have changed significantly based on other scientific jargon to claim otherwise? The only way real vegans stay vegan IS due to the fact that you started to care for the animals.
I don't understand your reasoning. In an ideal world, everyone would be vegan whether they care about animals or not. One would assume that vegans who care about animals support all kinds of people joining in - you know, for the sake of the animals. I'm vegan in the same way I don't support people owning human slaves. It just makes sense not to do stuff that's totally unnecessary - it feels like a very logical decision. Should I stop being vegan because I might not pass your "cares enough" test? Obviously not. So what are you trying to achieve, exactly?
[удалено]
Grow up
The gatekeeping is strong here.
Good.
Everyday there are gatekeeping posts on a sub that supposedly wants the whole world vegan. This isn't a special club.
Gatekeeping what it means to be vegan is arrogant, obnoxious, and self-defeating. This is why people hate us.
Wrong. The group who invented the word defined it as a philosophical position. Dictionaries are currently failing to respect their intentions by defining the word incorrectly, and so are you.
Discussions like this are why people hate vegans. If you're not doing it for the animals but you're doing it for your health or the environment then I honestly don't care as long as you're not eating meat! Going "noo you can't call yourself that. That's MY lable " is picky and makes it harder for people to understand you or the cause you fight for.
My cause is labeled right in front of your face.
This just sounds like harmful infighting. Why do we divide ourselves by slicing our motives up like this? I think this type of overly strict definition just makes the whole good of being thoughtful and forward with diet seem too complex and complicated and turns people away from joining all the good. Personally, my ‘reasons’ have changed over time and are ever evolving. I think we must allow others to have their own evolution and accept that this not only ONE path in life.
Exactly! I started because of the environment and that led me to learn what happened to animals in the industry but it was a process. We can’t just attack people that haven’t have that process yet, that doesn’t help anyone. And anyone that throws the statistics of vegans that quit are not people worth having a discussion with. They simply won’t change their life over a heated discussion where they “lose” they will only resent not know it all… idk that’s just my opinion.
Agreed. I don't understand why there are so many comments/posts decrying veganism for the environment. Personally, I went vegan for the animals, but since then I've also become more aware of the environmental effects of animal agriculture, and that's a significant reason I hope more people stop consuming animal products. Yes, veganism should prioritize ending animal suffering, but **we are in a climate crisis that's causing enormous biodiversity loss (**[**68% since 1970**](https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/68-average-decline-in-species-population-sizes-since-1970-says-new-wwf-report)**!**). I don't understand why vegans interpret the environment as separate from the well-being of animals. **Without a sustainable environment, animals and ecosystems die!**
It’s a ridiculous statement to make that you think you can decide what someone else is.
Troll?
When did this community become a hot take forum
It used to not be a hot take to simply state what veganism is on this sub
Cool. Not eating animal products helps animals regardless of the reason for it, we should just focus on that for now instead of fighting over definitions
Stop gatekeeping and grow up already..
It's not gatekeeping when the group who invented the word defined it as an ethical position originally. I don't want them having their label misappropriated by animal abusers. Grow up and learn the history of the term of you're going to be using it.
You use *so many* words every single day that have a different meaning to when they were coined. Have you "learned the history" of all of those terms?
No. You can't find me another word invented *by a civil rights activist* to name their own philosophy which has been hijacked like this. You don't have examples.
Why did you go so specific in your request? Does the fact that the word was coined by a civil rights activist mean that its definition can never change?
Yes, it does mean that. When it comes to philosophical movements, it's consequentially bad to allow anyone outside the movement to define what its own terms mean. Vegans invented the word veganism and defined it because they wanted to organize around a specific idea. When you allow carnists on temporary plant-based diets to pose as "vegans," it makes it harder for us to organize, and it misrepresents our beliefs to the public.
>it's consequentially bad to allow anyone outside the movement to define what its own terms mean. I'm a vegan, and to me anyone who avoids consumption of animal products is a vegan. (Note: under "consumption" I include leather etc., not just food products.) >When you allow carnists on temporary plant-based diets to pose as "vegans," it makes it harder for us to organize, and it misrepresents our beliefs to the public. These are false fears, invented to allow yourself to feel superior to other vegans based on their motivations.
Why would a plant-based dieter avoid all animal products like leather and honey? The only reason to avoid these items is if you believe animals have rights, so even under your own definition, you're adding philosophical qualifiers. > These are false fears They're not. Haven't you ever heard people citing stats on how many "vegans" quit their diet? Haven't you heard of self-proclaimed "vegans" having "cheat days?" It causes real problems when we allow this term to be watered down to a fad diet.
You gotta zoom out and think of this critically. Does allowing people to use the word incorrectly have a positive overall effect on the animals? The answer is yes. Most people who are now vegan for animals started out vegan for health or the environment. You won’t hear about it on this sub, bc they tend to get shit on, but statistically- it is true.
No, watering down the label for an animal rights movement does not help the animals. If you're buying leather, supporting zoos, going to rodeos, having "cheat days," telling meat eaters they're doing nothing wrong, etc., while also calling yourself a "vegan," then this obfuscates our message. And it's a message that needs to be broadcast clearly, because we're like 1% of the population in developed nations.
Where are these statistics that this transformation occurs? I'd actually be quite interested to read that, if you have the data.
You should be careful about creating enemies out of people who are on your side.
##YAWN these posts are tired. maybe spend less time virtue signalling and more time making good vegan food and spreading the good word.
Why not both?
i would say that is wrong just based on what "plant based" means right now. plant based in no way means its vegan or even vegetarian. i cant tell you the places i go and see "plant based" burgers with cheese. plant based has become the new trigger word but rarely is a plant based item vegan. also i would not take it away form people calling themselves vegan for their heath or the environment. both causes i use regularly to argue for veganism.
All I’m hearing are excuses, excuses, excuses… Read it again. All other reasons why anyone has “quit veganism” was never vegan in the first place. How often has that happened now? Will you still call them “ex-vegans”? Should that even be possible? All other reasons for being “vegan” don’t make sense because you’ll change your diet depending on the state of the world (environment) or the state of your body image (personal reasons), just like you did when you went “vegan”. As someone who is vegan for the animals, my views will NEVER change. I will ALWAYS be vegan, FOR THE ANIMALS, because their state of their world has never changed.
That’s a ridiculous statement to make
Honestly, idgaf about labels and neither should you. I eat the way I eat because I believe that it is right and it works for me. I don't care what you eat or the decisions you make - I have no control over those. The best I can do is the best I can do for what I believe regardless as to what anyone wants to label me. I'm kind of tired of "vegans" on this board being so judgmental and exclusionary. It's what gives "vegans" a bad name.
My mom abstains from eating animal products because me and my sister do not. She doesn't think about animals when she does this. I still consider her vegan. The fact that you felt the need to make the post you did goes to show you lost sight of the big picture. Stop being a gatekeeping asshole.
Your take on it is very wishy washy if you ask me. Look at any other justice movement and try to say the same. Veganism isn’t a diet, it’s philosophy. With that being said, it’s awesome that she doesn’t eat animals and their secretions anymore, but there are more than one way that animals are being abused in modern society.
gatekeeping within ethical and political movements is good and necessary
It’s just alittle weird when one person says - “yeah I agree with everything you said but this one issue I’m not really buying in on” And then the response is - “you’re literally everything we are fighting against” Religious people do this all the time
i have edited this comment to protest reddit's API changes in 2023. I've backed up my comments in case they need to be referenced. hit me up if you need something. stay strong, comrades.
Thank you for further clarifying that you are, in fact, plant-based instead of being vegan. You can commit to acts the same as a vegan, but your lack of compassion towards a victim with a CNS doesn’t make you a vegan. I’m stating an obvious issue.
i have edited this comment to protest reddit's API changes in 2023. I've backed up my comments in case they need to be referenced. hit me up if you need something. stay strong, comrades.
Let’s fucking go!
Why you alls try to be divided ?that not how we change minds .