7 ms·
I'm not sure what parallels you're trying to suggest but they're probably not valid ones. 'Meat' being used strictly in reference to animal flesh is a relativel
by sterkekoffie 7y ago
I'm not sure what parallels you're trying to suggest but they're probably not valid ones. 'Meat' being used strictly in reference to animal flesh is a relatively recent development. It's shorthand, in fact, so those truly concerned for linguistic integrity might opt to use the original term, "flesh meat."
- yters 7y agoBasically, they are using the connotations of common venacular usage of 'meat' to market something that is the opposite of the venacular 'meat'. Newspeak is all about naming one thing by its opposite, and using the connotations of the latter to hide the real meaning, like 1984's ministry of truth. So, it leaves me with the impression that this is not merely normal advertising by association, but a more agenda driven marketing move to modify people's consumption of meat by modifying language. For some reason, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If eating meat is really so objectively bad, why do you have to try and trick people into not eating it? The more someone has to rely on tricks and deception to achieve their goal, the less likely their goal is actually in everyone's best interest.
- sterkekoffie 7y agoA Beyond Burger is not the opposite of a hamburger. They are the same category of product, much like turkey sausages and pork sausages. I think you need to reevaluate your worldview if you think it's a more sound business model to try to trick unwitting people into buying a plant-based product than to just appeal to the base of people already interested in buying it.
- yters 7y agoIf they were only doing the latter, then their packaging would be much more straightforward. You can find other commentators in this set of comments that see the social agenda I'm identifying, although they are in favor of it.