5 ms·

> Vegans describing other people as murderers. Well, this is literally true if you consider non-human lives. The danger I see is then not listening to and inte

> Vegans describing other people as murderers. Well, this is literally true if you consider non-human lives. The danger I see is then not listening to and interacting with these non-vegans to develop a more nuanced perspective of the people on "the other side" who may not be very different after all. Stating a legitimate political or moral view alone is not (itself) what induces polarization, as I see it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
the-dude 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder If you want redefine language, that is fine, but in real life I will not accept being called a murderer. 1984 was not a manual.
- vinay427 6y ago
  > in real life I will not accept being called a murderer. What do you mean by not accepting it? You're welcome to disagree with the classification, of course. That's how we start a hearty discussion on values, morals, politics, etc. In real life, I would also hope that I use a more tactful strategy that doesn't immediately fall back on a term that will polarize my interlocutor.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    > What do you mean by not accepting it? I will make sure you will never call me a criminal of the worst kind ever again. In my experience, not very much is needed.
    - throwaway_hey 6y ago
      I’m not sure that’s going to help bridge the gap. Further re-trenching is the exact type of thing this article is warning against, no?
      - the-dude 6y ago
        It is not further re-trenching. It is slight re-education to steer them to civilized discourse.
gruez 6y ago
>Well, this is literally true if you consider non-human lives. [...] Stating a legitimate political or moral view alone is not (itself) what induces polarization, as I see it. Calling the other side "murderers" goes beyond "stating a legitimate political or moral view". You're accusing the other side of being criminals of the worst kind, so of course it's going to be polarizing.
- vinay427 6y ago
  > Calling the other side "murderers" goes beyond "stating a legitimate political or moral view". Can you explain your reasoning for this? More specifically, if one only considers certain types of X to qualify as X, does calling someone X if they perform an action not universally considered to be X go beyond "a legitimate political or moral view?"
  - gruez 6y ago
    It's not so much their view is illegitimate, it's that it's possible to state their moral/political view without alienating the other side. "We shouldn't slaughter animals because they're living beings too" gets the same point across without accusing the other side of being heinous criminals. It's not as provocative as "meat is murder", but I doubt many meat eaters are going to do a 180 because someone called them a murderer.
- konjin 6y ago
  A cow is less harmed by being fucked than by being eaten, yet a majority of people would lynch you if they could for doing the former while complaining they are being oppressed for being reminded cows are alive before the latter happens.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

the-dude 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder If you want redefine language, that is fine, but in real life I will not accept being called a murderer. 1984 was not a manual.

vinay427 6y ago
> in real life I will not accept being called a murderer. What do you mean by not accepting it? You're welcome to disagree with the classification, of course. That's how we start a hearty discussion on values, morals, politics, etc. In real life, I would also hope that I use a more tactful strategy that doesn't immediately fall back on a term that will polarize my interlocutor.
- the-dude 6y ago
  > What do you mean by not accepting it? I will make sure you will never call me a criminal of the worst kind ever again. In my experience, not very much is needed.
  - throwaway_hey 6y ago
    I’m not sure that’s going to help bridge the gap. Further re-trenching is the exact type of thing this article is warning against, no?
    - the-dude 6y ago
      It is not further re-trenching. It is slight re-education to steer them to civilized discourse.

gruez 6y ago

>Well, this is literally true if you consider non-human lives. [...] Stating a legitimate political or moral view alone is not (itself) what induces polarization, as I see it. Calling the other side "murderers" goes beyond "stating a legitimate political or moral view". You're accusing the other side of being criminals of the worst kind, so of course it's going to be polarizing.

vinay427 6y ago
> Calling the other side "murderers" goes beyond "stating a legitimate political or moral view". Can you explain your reasoning for this? More specifically, if one only considers certain types of X to qualify as X, does calling someone X if they perform an action not universally considered to be X go beyond "a legitimate political or moral view?"
- gruez 6y ago
  It's not so much their view is illegitimate, it's that it's possible to state their moral/political view without alienating the other side. "We shouldn't slaughter animals because they're living beings too" gets the same point across without accusing the other side of being heinous criminals. It's not as provocative as "meat is murder", but I doubt many meat eaters are going to do a 180 because someone called them a murderer.
konjin 6y ago
A cow is less harmed by being fucked than by being eaten, yet a majority of people would lynch you if they could for doing the former while complaining they are being oppressed for being reminded cows are alive before the latter happens.