4 ms·

The end goal of the radical vegan moralists is to legally reshape my cuisine and the cuisine of the majority of people to match their preferences. Not all vegan

by SllX 5y ago

The end goal of the radical vegan moralists is to legally reshape my cuisine and the cuisine of the majority of people to match their preferences. Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view. Deflecting is a polite way of terminating a conversation that can otherwise get very ugly and end friendships and/or further entrench and radicalize the counter-party in the conversation; not a concession to the quality or lack thereof of their points. Or to put it another way, when someone suggests I try a vegan diet, my first instinct is respond in a respectful way with an understandable and relatable reason why I will not, not to hammer them in the face with the truth that I will continue to guiltlessly eat God’s creatures until the day I die and I will raise my kids the same way.

kaycebasques 5y ago
It seems like you're strawmanning and radicalizing our conversation here a bit by focusing on radical vegan moralists. As a vegan of 2 years I can tell you that a supermajority of the vegans I know would not endorse *legally* reshaping anyone's cuisine. The radical segment of any social movement is usually the minority. Your argumentation here seems similar to completely denouncing Christianity, Political Party XYZ, or even Silicon Valley because of its most radical segment.
- SllX 5y ago
  Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe and pointed out that they were not well representative of vegans as a whole. Radicals are by definition the fringe and don’t need additional qualifiers, particularly in a sentence that was loaded with them (vegan moralists are also not representative of vegans; many vegans are vegan for pure dietary reasons or personal preference). My real point was this if you read past the first paragraph: if you care about politeness, keeping friendships and not hammering people in the face with what you actually think, you know, all the things that can further radicalize people, then deflection is the best course of action. This deflection should not be viewed as an implicit concession that somebody has a good point.
  - kaycebasques 5y ago
    > Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but your phrasing in the quote below seems to imply that most vegans are secretly aligned with or could be persuaded into become the radical moralists you mention earlier: > Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment. Edit: But I should also mention and acknowledge that I did read past the first paragraph in your original comment
    - SllX 5y ago
      Persuadables—non-aligned people without a strong position one way or another—are generally the largest subset of any group with an ideological element to it, and while the ideological component is severable from vegans individually, it is not severable from veganism as a movement. This doesn’t mean they are secretly aligned, just that given the right circumstances, they could be persuaded to a more (again, more, not necessarily most!) radical position. Most people can, this isn’t limited to vegans nor does this apply strictly to veganism. > It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment. Understandable. What it boils down to is I chose a tactic of advocating for a pretense while dropping all pretenses myself. Pretenses are inherently deceitful, but they can serve a good cause used appropriately, in this case maintaining basic social order. But by opening up my real thoughts underneath that pretense I was hoping to demonstrate why the pretense was in fact useful. Judging by the vote counter, I’ve seen it break even a few times today so that tells me it’s split down the middle how many people got that and how many people didn’t, so clearly I have room to improve too.

by SllX 5y ago

kaycebasques 5y ago

It seems like you're strawmanning and radicalizing our conversation here a bit by focusing on radical vegan moralists. As a vegan of 2 years I can tell you that a supermajority of the vegans I know would not endorse *legally* reshaping anyone's cuisine. The radical segment of any social movement is usually the minority. Your argumentation here seems similar to completely denouncing Christianity, Political Party XYZ, or even Silicon Valley because of its most radical segment.

SllX 5y ago
Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe and pointed out that they were not well representative of vegans as a whole. Radicals are by definition the fringe and don’t need additional qualifiers, particularly in a sentence that was loaded with them (vegan moralists are also not representative of vegans; many vegans are vegan for pure dietary reasons or personal preference). My real point was this if you read past the first paragraph: if you care about politeness, keeping friendships and not hammering people in the face with what you actually think, you know, all the things that can further radicalize people, then deflection is the best course of action. This deflection should not be viewed as an implicit concession that somebody has a good point.
- kaycebasques 5y ago
  > Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but your phrasing in the quote below seems to imply that most vegans are secretly aligned with or could be persuaded into become the radical moralists you mention earlier: > Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment. Edit: But I should also mention and acknowledge that I did read past the first paragraph in your original comment
  - SllX 5y ago
    Persuadables—non-aligned people without a strong position one way or another—are generally the largest subset of any group with an ideological element to it, and while the ideological component is severable from vegans individually, it is not severable from veganism as a movement. This doesn’t mean they are secretly aligned, just that given the right circumstances, they could be persuaded to a more (again, more, not necessarily most!) radical position. Most people can, this isn’t limited to vegans nor does this apply strictly to veganism. > It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment. Understandable. What it boils down to is I chose a tactic of advocating for a pretense while dropping all pretenses myself. Pretenses are inherently deceitful, but they can serve a good cause used appropriately, in this case maintaining basic social order. But by opening up my real thoughts underneath that pretense I was hoping to demonstrate why the pretense was in fact useful. Judging by the vote counter, I’ve seen it break even a few times today so that tells me it’s split down the middle how many people got that and how many people didn’t, so clearly I have room to improve too.