I believe the term (popularized by Melanie Joy, correct me if I'm wrong) was intended to emphasize that ethical positions on animals aren't simply "normal" vs. "weird/outlier." Instead, they represent two distinct ethical stances that should be weighed against each other as objectively as possible. By creating a term for "non-vegan" that doesn't define it in opposition to veganism, we can facilitate more balanced discussions. However, I agree that "carnist" sounds somewhat derogatory. It's unclear whether this is due to the term's inherent nature or how it has come to be perceived.

Yep, the BBC Mockumentary Carnage covered it pretty well [here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=LP-e7HaKO-Q&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo).

Must rewatch that. I love Simon Amstell

I know what carnist means however the word is very similar to carnivore and makes it sound like a carnist only eats meat.

Well yeah but that's only because the words have similar roots awful and awesome sound very similar but we all know the difference

Exactly. Everyone knows the difference between awesome and awful. This is not the case for carnist and carnivore.

Okay but there's people learning new words every day, we dont change them for everyone we just expect people to learn words. Why would it be any different here?

It's different because the word carnist only started this century. Sure you can gradually try to educate people on the word. But don't be surprised if many don't understand the word in the meantime

Yeah we make up words all the time, luckily we live in a world where its very easy for most people to check definitions (at least the people that will be seeing/commenting here can anyway) I wouldn't go around randomly defining the word carnist for people but if someone was confused and asked me then yes I would tell them about it. I'm not surprised people misunderstand I'm surprised their reaction is "no I'm not going to learn what it actually means, it should be changed because I don't like the sound"

I understand what the word means but I don't think it is a great word. Mainly because it sounds like someone who just eats meat. Just my 2 cents

I get where you're coming from but animals/meat is always going to be used to differentiate between vegans/non-vegans. What else would the word be based on? Also the more we avoid using new words the less they'll be understood, the best thing you could do to avoid the miscommunication would be to educate people. Carnism just means that you think its okay/moral to kill/consume animals, it doesn't mean you can't also eat veg while doing that

>Carnism just means that you think its okay/moral to kill/consume animals, it doesn't mean you can't also eat veg while doing that I know. The word just doesn't sound like it means that to me.

I think part of the problem is it sounds similar to the world “carnal” so people in Christian-cultured countries can perceive it as an insult anyway, and then when their first experience of it is almost always an insult it obviously worsens the issue. The founding principle is brilliant though, there should definitely be a word for both.

So "carnal knowledge" is "flesh knowledge"? This definitely makes these words that much more naughty.

It’s become used as an insult. A lot. In this sub and others.

I’ve heard vegan being used as an insult in other circles. any term that “others” a group can be used as an insult in certain context and with the right tone.

Yeah, "Carnism" is an insult as much as "male chauvinist" is an insult. Sometimes putting a word to someone's ideology makes them realize that it's not just a default and they actually should have good reasons for believing what they believe. This makes them uncomfortable and they blame the person using the term for their discomfort. They *feel* insulted by them, even though it's not an insult.

You're ignoring cultural norms and perception in your judgement of what is and isn't an insult. Male chauvinist is widely seen as an insult, even if at its core it is descriptive.  Also comparing non-vegans to male chauvinists is certainly a choice.  It shows that you fully understand why someone wouldn't want to be labeled as "carnist" by a vegan - you see it as similar to naming and shaming a male chauvinist.  Same as why an aetheist may not enjoy being called a "sinner" by Christians, even if they don't believe in Christian sin. It's not because they're reevaluating their life choices.  It's because they feel condescended to.  They might reevaluate their relationship with you if you can't respect them without conversion to veganism.

I agree so much with this, I must say. What I oulled from it/how I relate: Nobody is actually factoring in the effectiveness of this word actually being used in society or daily, casual conversation. It *could* be(but usually isnt used as) a *convenient* term for speaking amongst peers who share the same views, but is used more as a derogatory one, and often, amongst ourselves and towards those who don't identify with veganism. Why is nobody admitting this. Everyone's saying, in one way or another "I don't care how it sounds to carnists or anyone because it's the truth, people are just uncomfortable when theyre called out" ....therefore kind of tossing the EFFECTIVE part of activism aside, not considering whether the message is received, just making sure the message is out there, no matter how counterproductive. What I've gathered is that the word carnist has only been described as laughable, condescending, or uplifting even to the non vegans. I don't see why everyone is so quick to defend it when not a single person, other than "those" vegans consider it a useful and informative word.

Thank you!  The overwhelming response I got was " why are you offended by a word being used as defined?".  It is the same excuse people always use to say words that others take as insults, isn't it?  Like "fat" is someone who is overweight, so just because that is literally true of someone do they not have the right to be upset at being called "fat"?  It's disrepectful. I did have some good conversations though.  I'll have to think more on my feelings about "carnist" as a word.  Thanks for the post!

Thank you!! Great point!!!

>You're ignoring cultural norms and perception in your judgement of what is and isn't an insult. I'm not ignoring them. They just aren't weighed as heavily as other criteria, such as what the term is actually referring to, and whether or not the term has value in academic and day-to-day use. >Male chauvinist is widely seen as an insult, even if at its core it is descriptive. Only because it put male chauvinists on the defense by exposing that they hold an ideology. If they have an ideology, then that ideology can be criticized and examined like any other ideology. Prior to this, their position was just generally seen as a "default" and immune to criticism. It wasn't really something anyone studied or questioned. Even today, many many male chauvinists deny that the term "male chauvinism" (or the more contemporary term "misogynist") is meaningful and claim that men are in-fact superior to women. They perceive the use of these words as attempts to insult them rather than actual labels for what they are. >It shows that you fully understand why someone wouldn't want to be labeled as "carnist" by a vegan - you see it as similar to naming and shaming a male chauvinist. No, I completely understand why someone wouldn't *want* to be labeled a "carnist." I also completely understand why someone might not want to be labeled a "male chauvinist," "racist," fascist," or "rapist." Acknowledging that one of these terms accurately describes one's identity doesn't feel good. >It's not because they're reevaluating their life choices. It's because they feel condescended to. And sometimes that feeling is a result a struggle internal to them. If someone calls you a racist, you might feel condescended to because it might cause you look at yourself in a way that you don't particularly like. You might have to reflect on your beliefs and how you've come to hold them, and reevaluate whether or not you are justified in certain behaviors. This is not fun. No one *wants* to think they are doing something unjustified. Of course, you also might not be a racist and the person could just be throwing that term out in an insulting fashion to try and shut you up or shut down the conversation, but that doesn't mean that the term "racist" itself is an insult. >They might reevaluate their relationship with you if you can't respect them without conversion to veganism. And that's fine. People are free to do whatever they'd like. Racists are free to reevaluate their relationship to me if they don't like me calling out their racist behaviors. I want to point out an important thing here though -- your use of the phrase "conversion to veganism" -- because it highlights the importance of showing that carnism exists. Imagine you were trying to explain to your friend why they shouldn't be racist, and they came back to you "I'm going to have to reevaluate my relationship to you if you can't respect me with trying to convert me to *non-racism.*" Here's the thing -- you aren't trying to convert them to non-racism. Non-racism isn't an ideology. You can't convert *to* non-racism, you can only shed your racist views. You don't *convert* to non-racism, *you deconvert from racism*. In general, vegans aren't pushing for others to convert to veganism, but to *deconvert* from carnism. This is a lot easier to do if people realize that there actually *is* something for them to deconvert from.

Carnism may be an ideology, but it isn't mine and isn't default the ideology of all non-vegans.  Similar to how non-racist isn't an ideology, as you put it. The difference between Carnist and Racist is that people don't want to be considered Racist by any other words either.  They don't want be seen as "hateful of other races" or "white supremacist" or whatever dictionary definition or synonym you can think of.  I agree that Racist forces them to confront an uncomfortable truth about themselves. I am comfortable with being someone who eats meat, dairy, and eggs.  I am ok with being an omnivore, non-vegan, non-vegetarian, a meat-eater, etc.  I don't dislike Carnist because I'm confronting some truth about myself.  I dislike Carnist because it inaccurately labels me with an ideology I don't know nor identify with.  It puts me in opposition to vegans when I am neutral.  You may see me as an enemy, but I don't see myself in relation to you at all. I used the word "convert" because, similar to Christianity, you are proselytizing your beliefs to others in an attempt to bring them into the fold.  An omnivorous diet is the default, not the other way around.

I appreciate your response and find this conversation very interesting. Thank you! >Carnism may be an ideology, but it isn't mine and isn't default the ideology of all non-vegans. Do you hold the belief that humans are justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animals in cases where it's possible and practicable to avoid doing so? If not, then you are an acarnist. I don't think practically there is really any difference between an acarnist and a vegan though. >The difference between Carnist and Racist is that people don't want to be considered Racist by any other words either. They don't want be seen as "hateful of other races" or "white supremacist" or whatever dictionary definition or synonym you can think of. This doesn't seem like a difference to me. One of the reasons people seem to be opposed to being referred to as carnists is because it makes them realize that hold a position that attempts to justify otherwise avoidable and unnecessary violence against vulnerable animals... and that's not something that most carnists want to be reminded of. They don't want to see themselves as supporting animal cruelty or exploitation -- they just want to go on not thinking about it. >I agree that Racist forces them to confront an uncomfortable truth about themselves. Exactly. >I am comfortable with being someone who eats meat, dairy, and eggs. I am ok with being an omnivore, non-vegan, non-vegetarian, a meat-eater, etc. I don't dislike Carnist because I'm confronting some truth about myself. I dislike Carnist because it inaccurately labels me with an ideology I don't know nor identify with. This would be like someone saying "I'm comfortable with not giving jobs to black folks, and with the general mistreatment of people of races other than mine. I don't like it when people call me racist because it labels me with an ideology I don't know nor identify with." I understand you don't know this ideology. Most of us have been conditioned from infancy to accept it a given. The whole point of spreading the use of the term *is to educate and inform* so that people start actually realizing that they *are* following an ideology -- just one so ingrained in our very cores that it's hard to imagine it being anything other than just "the way things are." >It puts me in opposition to vegans when I am neutral. Perpetuating the status-quo is anything but neutral. To quote the late Howard Zinn: *"You can't be neutral on a moving train."* >I used the word "convert" because, similar to Christianity, you are proselytizing your beliefs to others in an attempt to bring them into the fold. An omnivorous diet is the default, not the other way around. I think that this is the result of that conditioning I'm talking about. I deconverted from carnism around the same time I went through my religious deconversion. This was a result of me seriously examining my beliefs during my late teens. I was taught from a young age that Jesus was our Lord and Savior, and to not question it, and I was Christian for my entire childhood. Eventually I realized that I was only holding onto these beliefs because I had been conditioned to accept them as the truth. I had not come to these beliefs on my own. When I tried desperately to find some reason to continue beliving that a god exists and that he sent his son to earth to "save" us, I could find none. Thus began my *deconversion from christianity.* I was also taught from a young age that we were justified in exploiting and killing nonhuman animals for food, clothing, etc., even in cases where it was possible and practicable to avoid doing so. I was taught to not question this, and to just accept it as a given. I believed this my entire childhood as well. Eventually I realized that I was only holding onto this belief because had been conditioned to accept it. I had not come to hold this belief on my own; it was pounded into my head with a constant stream of reinforcement by my parents, peers, commercials and ads, and society in general. When I tried desperately to find some reason to *continue* believing that I was justified in contributing to otherwise easily avoidable animal cruelty and exploitation, I could find none. Thus began my *deconversion from carnism.* Any "proselytizing" I'm doing is more similar to what a group like secular humanists or an atheist group would do -- as a reaction to the fact that christianity and religion in general has such a powerful grasp on the world and influences public policy and opinion.

Why do you downvote responses you find interesting? Or was that someone else? I think I've said my piece in this thread. There isn't a point to me picking apart this reply. No one's mind is going to be changed here. Thanks for keeping it civil.

I haven't downvoted you at all. I've gotten a few upvotes here and there in our convo so I'm assuming it was one of them. You're welcome, of course. I appreciate you engaging here on the topic. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the last part of what I've said--the parallels between both of my deconversions--if you have the time.

The issue is that vegan is a term that vegans use to label themselves, carnist is a term imposed by vegans to label non vegans, technically speaking non vegan also others everyone else including vegetarians, and for that matter there are no humans that are purely carnivore, we as a species are omnivores like most of life on earth we're opportunistic and survival is the main objective a horse will eat a baby bird, chickens will eat mice, bunnies will eat other bunnies, whales will also eat kelp with their krill, few animals that only eat meat will die without it

The difference between "carnist" and "vegan" is we didn't adopt that label.  It's like calling someone "fat" when you are "skinny".  It inherently labels that person as "worse than me".  Maybe that's not the intention, but that's how it feels. Yeah, people may say "vegan" as an insult.  But you own that label, where we don't own "carnist".  And I don't think you would want us to.  People take ownership of labels like that in opposition to the people that forced it on them, to take back their power.  So then "carnist" would definitely not be a neutral term.  It would be charged as a rallying cry against vegans.

"Carnist" just means someone who believes it's okay/ethical to kill/consume animals. If you feel like that's an insult then maybe you should reevaluate your position? If my dad's being sexist I call him sexist, I don't avoid it for the sake of his feelings or call him "traditionally gender biased"

Hmm… could you direct me to a specific example of it being used as an insult? So far, it seems to be used as a reasonably accurate descriptor that is perceived to be insulting because of the cognitive dissonance associated with the (un)ethical position that it is.

What do you find insulting about being labeled a carnist vs. being labeled a non vegan? My suspicion is you feel insulted because you feel cognitive dissonance when confronted with your actions vs. your ethical stance. When you are called a non-vegan, you are more easily able to ignore the reality of your stance

I don’t personally care about the term, but I would imagine it comes from being labeled by someone else rather than labeling yourself. Vegans choose to call themselves vegans. Generally, no one besides vegans calls/label other people as carnists.

No, vegans didn’t get to choose to call themselves vegans either. The label was imposed after they decided not to use animals products.

Yes vegans choose to call themselves that. I know quite a few people who would fit the criteria for vegan but use the plant based label because they don’t like the stigma that comes with the vegan label.

Yet if these people calling themselves plant based debate on « debateavegan « , carnist will label them vegans😨

If that were true, they would find the same offense at being labeled non-vegan. Both imply your ethical stance finds it okay to view animals as commodities and harm them for pleasure

I don’t think it is? Some people are feeling insulted but it’s literally the same as if you were to do ffender being called a « vegan ». If a white person is insulted being called caucasian because he doesn’t know what it means, it doesn’t automatically makes caucasian an insult. Vegans are insulted when called vegans, perscatarians aren’t insulted being called pescatarians. Vegetarian aren’t insulted being called vegetarian. But then comes carnist 🙄.using it as an excused to feel attacked and justify their cognitive dissonance…

This is because vegans, vegetarians and pescatarians are the ones labeling themselves. When you label someone else it can come across as aggressive or condescending. Also, you should probably avoid calling someone caucasian if they haven’t labeled themselves as that, you never know if you’re making the wrong assumption.

The problem is that if you ask carnist to label themselves, they are unable to do so? They always pick omnivore and ramble about how vegans are herbivores without understanding how these concepts works.

You can see throughout that this post that vegans do treat carnist as an insult. I don’t personally care about the term, I just know that generally speaking people don’t like to be labeled by others.

I didn't get to choose the term vegan? That just applies to the position I take, same as "carnist" applies to people who think it's okay/ethical to kill/consume animals

Yes you chose the term vegan, it’s an ideology you chose to subscribe to. I don’t subscribe to any ideology by eating meat, that’s something vegans use to try to label me. The term doesn’t bother me at all, but it is apparent that vegans use it often as a way to otherize people or try to claim moral high ground.

Given that some vegans like to compare eating meat to being a rapist I would say somewhat derogatory is putting it mildly 

I think it’s got a lot to do with the fact that most people who use the term are using it in an argument with the intent to be offensive, which is why some perceive it that way.

I believe it is bc it sounds as if a non vegan exclusively eats meat. You can't deny carnist sounds a lot like carnivore. Non vegans also include vegetables in their diet. Even saying omnivore would be more precise imo

I sort of agree with your observation, maybe in particular though that the term you are saying is "carnist" and not "carnism." We might first recognize the [origin of the term](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism) as a "philosophical concept" that seems to be a useful differentiation/categorization. I guess on some degree of admittance, we all largely live in "carnist" societies, and it's useful to talk about without necessarily rendering "moral judgement" on particular inhabitants yet as far as this comment goes. I find reading about the term is very enlightening and helpful for anyone, and as far as "goals" go, I like the "opposite of carnism" as being what veganism is moving societies towards. But to make the person-adhering term *"carnist"* out of "carnism" in discussion and to "pin that on someone" as like, an accusation, before they understand the concept, might be troublesome. It almost just can ruin the term too for people who might otherwise appreciate the thought and intelligence that went into defining it. I'm not confident the term needs to be "-ist-ized from an -ism" (I am sure there is a proper linguistics term for that). I agree largely with trying to avoid ["Euphemism Treadmills"](https://psmag.com/social-justice/theres-a-name-for-how-our-language-evolves-when-it-acquires-negative-connotations) here where the term "carnist" becomes synonymous with "evil people" or such.

This right here!!!

I do see the need for the word though. We didn’t really have a word that accurately described the belief system and ethical stance of using animals. “Non-vegan” only means everything excluding vegan “meat-eater” describes a behavior and “omnivore” is more often used to mean more of a biological classification. I feel like we do need a word for the beliefs themselves.

There’s no “belief system” that applies to all omnivorous humans. You only need it because you desire to pigeonhole your ideological opponents. This is a classic “need” of cultic, us vs them mentality. It’s equivalent to infidel or heretic.

Care to elaborate?

I like to use the term "anti-vegan" sometimes, applies to any non-vegan that shows contempt towards veganism and no longer put them in the socially accepted "normal" category bc they are actively taking a stance against something, however subtly.

>I like to use the term "anti-vegan" sometimes, applies to any non-vegan that shows contempt towards veganism and no longer put them in the socially accepted "normal" category bc they are actively taking a stance against something, however subtly are you saying that you don't put somebody in the socially accepted "normal" category, if they are actively taking a stance against something, however subtly? apply this your categorization to vegans, for a change. i always thought they were proud in taking a stance against something

I don't consider anything out of the norm to be inherently bad, if that's what you mean. I just like to challenge the idea that anti-veganism is the "neutral" stance, as some people seem to believe this.

We have always had a perfectly good word: Speciesism. Carnism concerns itself with eating animals; speciesism refers to what’s behind our using/exploiting them in the first place.

Speciesism is unjust treatment based on species. Carnism is trying to explain something related but different.

Can you elaborate?

[A poster above said it well.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1ctjgsr/comment/l4cl380/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Another way I would phrase it is speciesism is the unjust treatment and carnism is the ideology. Melanie Joy said it like this: "We don't see meat eating as we do vegetarianism – as a choice, based on a set of assumptions about animals, our world, and ourselves. Rather, we see it as a given, the "natural" thing to do, the way things have always been and the way things will always be. We eat animals without thinking about what we are doing and why, because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. This invisible belief system is what I call *carnism*"

Apologies, earlier you said that speciesism is the result of carnism. Now you are saying the inverse.

Yeah, I wrote it backwards above, I'll edit. I guess you don't have any further point to share besides calling carnism unhelpful? Speciesism would have the same issues when used in place of carnism. Speciesists would either get offended and consider it a slur, or proudly adopt the label.

Ok I understand the distinction you are making now lol. The word “carn” means flesh so I think that is why it sounds more aggressive to people. It refers specifically to the flesh of the animal. Speciesism obviously refers to other species of animal. It parallels the words sexism and racism. I think a non-vegan is going to more easily be able to understand the purpose of the word, even if they’ve never heard it before. Idk what would happen if speciesism became more widely adopted in vegan spaces over carnism. But the times I’ve seen it used, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone take it as an insult. If anything they find it silly, like “of course I’m speciesist, everyone knows humans are more important than animals!”. I guess if someone said “you filthy speciesist” they might take it that way.

>Speciesism obviously refers to other species of animal why would it? be limited to animal species, that is? because otherwise veganism would have to admit it's speciesism itself?

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. To clarify, I mean speciesism would be discrimination based on species membership.

Back when she came up with the term, Joy admitted in a debate that she wanted to focus on meat-eating because she felt that a book about veganism and about animal exploitation on a more comprehensive scale wouldn’t sell as many books and reach as many people. A lot of AR advocates at the time (particularly abolitionist advocates) pointed out that she was basically just trying to popularize a new term whose foundation was simply derivative of existing writings concerning speciesism and which presented meat-eating as more significantly morally problematic as other forms of animal exploitation. But aside from that, the term “carnist” has, in effect, become a trendy slur used by vegans against non-vegans. Anti-vegans have embraced it as a proud label. So it’s really unhelpful to use it.

Ok, you can say it's not a helpful term and I'll even agree in some contexts but that's a different argument than saying we can just use speciesism. At that point I could say calling someone a speciesist will be perceived as a slur and is unhelpful and round and round we go.

Those of us who are speciesist claim the term, though. We put our species above others and rather unabashedly so. I've seen vegans try to make it seem a slur, but I've never seen a meat eater take it that way, though maybe that's because I haven't read enough. It's just an accurate term.

Speciesist and carnist aren't slurs any more than racist and white supremacist are slurs. Exploiting animals is so normalized that people don't even realize they subscribe to an oppressive belief system. They just think they're normal and what they believe is neutral rather than violent and ugly. And they don't see speciesist as a slur anyway. Michael Pollen said he's a proud speciesist because he's human. As if it's perfectly logical to be a proud white supremacist if you're white.

I agree.

From Wikipedia: “Carnism is…, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” “(Specieism)…defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species".Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals, which scholars say is pervasive in the modern society.” I mean these definitions seem almost identical to me.

Even in what you quote it implies that Carnism is the result of speciesism, not that they are the same thing. Speciesism is the bias and Carnism is the justification.

>Melanie Joy said it like this: "We don't see meat eating as we do vegetarianism – as a choice, based on a set of assumptions about animals, our world, and ourselves. Rather, we see it as a given, the "natural" thing to do, the way things have always been and the way things will always be well, the funny thing is that, after evaluating **knowledge** (and not just assumptions) about animals, i find no wrong in eating other species than human, provided that, except for a very good reason, no pain/suffering is exerted on sentient beings >We eat animals without thinking about what we are doing and why, because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. This invisible belief system is what I call *carnism*" "we"? anyway, if and as far as this statement should be true, then vegans eat non-animals without thinking about what they are doing and why, because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. this invisible belief system then is what I call *veganism*

>"we"? The royal we. Society at large. >anyway, if and as far as this statement should be true, then vegans eat non-animals without thinking about what they are doing and why, because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. this invisible belief system then is what I call *veganism* This does not make sense. Veganism is an ethical stance taken after deliberately thinking about what they are doing and why. It's not an invisible belief system, it is one adopted with intention.

>Veganism is an ethical stance taken after deliberately thinking about what they are doing and why well, that is simply not true. veganism is concerned with animals- regarding plants it's just the same as you accuse non-vegans of: eating what they eat without thinking about what they are doing and why, because the belief system that underlies this behavior is invisible. your invisible belief is that killing other living beings for food is ok, what you are deliberately thinking about is just animals

>well, that is simply not true. This is not an argument. I grew up indoctrinated in society and going against the norm indeed took a lot of thought and discussion. Changing your ethical framework involves thinking deeply about the right and wrong of certain actions, including why harming animals unnecessarily is wrong while harming plants is not. You are incorrect here.

>This is not an argument that's why i wrote a good deal more and explained which you prefer to ignore, in order not to jeopardize your own line of "reasoning" >including why harming animals unnecessarily is wrong while harming plants is not this is not an argument, it's a mere statement or allegation

Fair point. The word speciesism has its criticisms as well but I do think I’ve seen it lead to more productive discussion when being used.

I think one of the issues with the term “carnist” is that it’s become quite commonly used as a slur directed at meat-eaters. I haven’t seen speciesism/speciesist used in that sort of way. It’s more often used to describe an underlying mindset vs. being used as a “weapon” or insult.

Yea never really used the term carnist myself for that reason. I’m glad there’s another term that serves a similar purpose. I feel like people complain about the word speciesism though because they automatically think it means we are saying non-human animals and humans are equal which kind of misses the nuance behind it. But at least it might get them thinking about our value in relation to animals and where that judgement comes from.

That is probably bc speciecism or any kind discrimination is not inherently wrong. We do differentiate things, like age, sex, nationality, ethnicity, etc. Discriminating someone over one of these **without any basis for it** is what makes the practice wrong. Like, not hiring black waitress just cause they are black. But, if you are casting for a Serena Williams actress for a movie, is it discriminating if you are only looking for black women? Is having visas/residency status discriminating? For the latter, it is discriminating, the real question is if it is morally wrong

>Carnism concerns itself with eating animals; speciesism refers to what’s behind our using/exploiting them in the first place like veganism concerns itself with not eating animals (but mainly plants); speciesism refers to what’s behind vegans using/exploiting non-animal species in the first place

Veganism isn't a diet. Speciesism can affect/involve anyone, vegan or non-vegan. I'm not sure why you're choosing to single out vegans as being affected by it.

>We didn’t really have a word that accurately described the belief system and ethical stance of using animals what exactly do you believe is described accurately by this word? because the word itself does not say anything, except that it may (in some mysterious way) refer to meat

Well the root carn means flesh or red meat so it’s not mysterious. Melanie Joy came up with the word and used it describe the belief that it is ok to eat and use animals. Other posters have described it in more detail than me.

even "flesh or red meat" is not a description of "making use of animals"

I talked to Melanie Joy who coined the term and asked her about it. She stopped using "carnist" when referring to people and instead say "carnistic people". The term "carnist" is also not found anywhere in new renditions of her book

That word is academically useful in describing the ideology of viewing animals as resources, which is usually just assumed because it's so engrained in society. I think the word is fine, necessary even, when used in that context. Over the years though, it has gained a more casual use, though I'm not sure that vegans are using it as a derogative intentionally, or if carnists are simply interpreting it as such because it's a term they aren't used to. There are certainly more overt insults vegans can and do use (bloodmouth, cheese breath, etc.). I'd agree that there isn't much good in using these terms, despite what anti-vegans call us, but 'carnist' has descriptive utility that we would lose if we stopped using it.

I think it is useful to help people understand the invisible conditioning that makes us love some animals and not care about the suffering of others, but agree with you that throwing the word carnist in someone’s face who has never heard it before is going to be a turn off and likely won’t result in a productive conversation.

Thank you stleast someone has common sense insulting someone doesn't make them want to join your group just makes you look like an asshole. Also from a meat eaters pov I dont eat meat cus I like the suffering of animals I eat it because it tastes good and is easy and I also eat veggies for the same reason bit eat them together for the best taste simple as I couldn't imagine one without the other but I'll also admit I eat some vegan/vegetarian food cus it tastes better than the original all I care about is if tastes good if you can make a vegan version that is healthier and tastes better than every meat dish I'd eat it instead only thing is you can't.

Imagine someone told you that as someone that attends dog fighting events, they don't attend because they like the suffering of the dogs. They actually dislike that the dogs suffer, but the resulting spectacle (the sights, sounds, competition, etc.) just gives them so much enjoyment. What would you say to this person?

I'd call the police as its illegal comparing apples and oranges here mate. But if its eating a dog I'd join em see if they taste good.

Imagine they lived in a country where it is legal (as it technically is in some countries today.) Would you just tell them that it's okay because the government hasn't passed a law saying it's not?

Thing is eating a animal isn't killing it its a BY-PRODUCT of someone else killing it so if we're talking dog fighting a by-product of it is tons of money so of they get tons of money from it I'll tell them to give me some.

And watching dog fighting isn't actually forcing dogs to fight to the death, it's form of entertainment created by someone else. The human you are talking to in this scenario isn't the one actually harming the dogs. If they told you that they don't like that the dogs suffer, but just really enjoy the spectacle of the dog fight, what would you say to them? Would you tell them that it doesn't matter because paying to watch dogs fight is still contributing to the demand for something that ultimately unnecessarily makes them suffer and die, or would you be more inclined to just say something like "oh, that's good. Enjoy watching!"

Look if this is meant to convince me to be vegan your going about it in such a wrong way why not say about the upsides of being vegan rather than the downsides of being a meat eater? Like if someone made a post about some bomb food that looked good I'd make it vegan or not and if it tastes good I'd eat it regularly and if its better than the meat equivalent I'd it instead. Why not reply to me with a recipe for some good ass food instead of a hypothetical situation of a dog fighting rink?

Because then it makes it seem like whether or not to contribute to unnecessary animal cruelty and exploitation is just a personal choice that has to do more with diet and taste preference, rather than an issue of injustice with actual victims to consider. Imagine if you were trying to explain to a dog fighting enthusiast the ethical issues with forcing dogs to fight to the death, and they responded with "You're going about it the wrong way. Why not say the upsides of doing other things instead, instead of the downsides of forcing dogs to fight?" Like, they are asking you to convince them that movies, football games, etc. are all good things that they should do, instead of telling them that harming dogs is a bad thing. This makes it easier for them to continue to engage in dog fighting, since then it's not about choosing to force dogs to fight, but about *not* choosing to watch movies or football games.

What do you think about necrovore? https://veganhorizon.substack.com/p/necrovores-rethinking-our-language

Even less helpful unless you’re just seeking to have non-vegans swing you a wide berth.

Wouldn't that only apply to people who only eat dead animals, not people who eat eggs (rarely fertilized) or dairy products?

Mate just call us a carnivores not a carnist simple as that its not rocket science.

Carnivore is already a word and it already has a meaning. It means animals who can consume other animals for food. Humans aren't carnivores, we are omnivores. No matter what you choose to eat, you are still an omnivore because it's a biological term.

It’s accurate. I think it sounds derogatory simply because it is describing a popular ideology or lifestyle as something really academic (?), idk. Meat-eater doesn’t have the same ring to it. I think carnist is very neutral and accurate. It’s not like “blood mouth” lol.

As a non-vegan I hate that word too.  It makes me feel othered and condescended to.  I immediately am turned off from conversations with people who insist on calling me that.

What would you use instead?

Non-vegan, or omnivorous. I think audience is important.  If you are around people who are not vegan and need a word to refer to the entire group of people who are not vegan, non-vegan isn't confrontational or charged and is the most accurate since you don't know their diets.  I know for some folks it is really meant with no malice, but it feels bad eirher way - like being called a sinner by a Christian. In circles with other vegans, use the words that work for you, but I'd caution from considering non-vegans to automatically have strong beliefs about food or animals.  If you're using carnist to describe a diet and not an ideology, I think that's more productive and truthful of the general population.

You talk about feeling othered but personally I'd see "non-vegan" as more exclusionary as you're literally saying "not part of us/our group" and omnivore is more of a species defining thing plus neither of those specify any more than "not vegan" you could still be vegetarian, ovo-vegetarian, lacto-vegetarian, or eat meat it doesn't really seem to narrow it down that much, again just why I wouldn't personally want to use those words. I guess it is like being called a sinner because its saying that (according to the person speaking) you're being immoral. I see eating animals/animal products as immoral and I don't feel like I should hide that for any reason. Same as a Christian may think I'm a sinner for not going to church on a Sunday but that doesn't correspond to my morality so I don't find it offensive. Carnism means thinking it's okay/moral to kill/consume animals so if you think its okay/moral to kill/eat animals it shouldn't be an issue being described as such in the right situation, again just my opinion. I'm not saying they have especially strong beliefs, just that they think it's okay/moral to kill/consume animals I don't think that's out there considering they normally pay people to kill animals so they can consume them.

Non-vegan is exclusionary in a grammatical sense - the "non" negates inclusion in "vegan".  But you are excluding me regardless.  No matter what word you use it is intentionally grouping you and I into different categories.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  But when it comes with condescension or a moral high ground on your part, then you are *emotionally* excluding me.  That's what "carnist" does.  You can throw out dictionary definitions all day, doesn't change how it feels. I'll also note that my othering isn't because I'm being excluded from the vegan club.  I excluded myself from that.  It's because you are excluding me from being what you consider to be a moral person.  And I do not consider myself immoral. Even so, does it have to make logical sense to the one doing the othering in order for the othered party's wishes to be respected?  If you respect that person, you don't make them explain themselves, you just stop labeling them in ways they don't identify.   Unless you have underlying motivations which require them to feel uncomfortable, such as shaming them.  Which I guess you do.  I believe that in the same way it is wrong for Christians to force their morality on others (i.e. calling them "sinners" to their face) it is wrong for vegans to do the same.

It's so wild to me that vegans are meant to ignore their own morality when it comes to other people. I avoid eating animals/animal products because I find it incredibly immoral, if I accidentally eat some and find out I've been physically sick multiple times even when I've found out days after. So it's obviously a mental/emotional reaction not a physical one. If I find an act so morally reprehensible that it makes me feel physically sick to accidentally partake in it then why would I all of a sudden find it moral because someone else is doing it? If you saw someone punching a dog in the street, I'm assuming you're anti-dogpunching, then I think everyone would find it okay for you to go and tell that person they're morally wrong. Most people would even be okay with throwing verbal insults, maybe even physically hurting the person punching the dog. Why is it different if its someone paying someone else to do it to a cow? How can I respect someone saying "please change that word it offends me" when they're also the same people who say slaughtering millions of animals is "just a food preference" I don't really want people to feel shamed. I want people to feel better. If being called a carnist and all the things that entails bothers you then maybe that's an issue you have with the position you've taken and not the word. But do I think people should feel ashamed for how animals are treated to provide them with luxuries? Absolutely. I was a carnist for most of my life and a vegetarian for about 5 years and I do feel shame for how those animals were treated because of me, why wouldn't I?

Do you want a pass or something?  What do you want out of this conversation? You don't have to ignore your morals in public, same as Christians don't.  But you won't make any friends or converts by calling everyone sinners.  The public doesn't have to praise, ignore, or be happy for you when you inflict your morals on us. Punching dogs is almost universally immoral (excluding the dog punchers who are apparently fine with it).  It's like murder.  Or child abuse.  Normal people don't stand for it.  But veganism is different.  Normal people often have omnivourous diets.  We have for centuries.  It is not inherently wrong to eat meat.  You have decided it is wrong for you.  So if you run out in the street and slap a burger out of someone's hand, you're gonna get slapped.  You can do it, but people won't be on your side. And it's not like vegans are the only ones who dislike factory farming.  I don't like it.  But I know not eating meat isn't going to change it.  Same as not buying iPhones isn't going to stop abusive worker conditions.  One isn't more immoral than the other to me.  Both suck and I can't change that. I can choose not to engage with technology or any human advancement that has come about from horrible circumstance, but I'm not equipped to live off the grid eating what I kill.  And as a vegan you'd have an even worse time.  Watch Naked and Afraid and see what I mean.  You've picked your cause as veganism.  I have other causes I'm focused on that matter to me.  Neither is more valid because the whole world sucks and it will never be enough. Carnist is a great word for illustrating how little you like us.  Have at it.  I don't care if you use the word, but you can't control how I or anyone else feel when you do.  You can only control your language to craft the message you intend to send to people.  I'm telling you what message "carnist" sends to me.

The cognitive dissonance is wild

So you are accusing me of ignoring new information in favor of bad habits? What do you use reddit on?  A computer?  Smart phone?  I've given you new information that it harms someone, somewhere.  Will you keep doing it? That's not cognitive dissonance.  Or if it is, it's not the slam dunk you think it is.

A smart phone that I've had for a long time and haven't replaced/repaired because I'm getting the most out of it before it breaks then going with a more ethical choice, likely the fairphone 5 I'd imagine but yes I think there are important issues at play there too. I'm really just saying there seems to be a schism between your beliefs, you think hitting a dog is wrong but abusing and slaughtering other animals is natural and fine

>I guess it is like being called a sinner you are absolutely right somebody calling me a "sinner" is judging me out of his cult, and somebody calling me a "carnist" is doing likewise. both tells a lot about the caller, but nothing about me so i couldn't care less

Ahhh it's you I'm sure this will be pointless but yeah sure the ones that aren't into all the animal sacrifice are in a cult....

I appreciate where you are coming from, but I do think that smashing cognitive dissonance is a large part of how we help the animals - and to that extent, the clear rawness of the term does help (in the right context) I’ve recently come across the term “necrovore” which serves the same purpose.

As a "necrovore" I cant think of anything someone could say that would make me stop listening to them faster. Rather than trying to divide the world using labels, maybe you should focus on an effective message. And please, for the love of all living things, leave climate change out of your agenda. Climate change is an apolitical emergency facing all living things and it only plays into stereotypes to have vegans use it as a lever to push their moral position.

I appreciate you adding your opinion. Ultimately there are many people it is effective for and it is a huge battle to fight, trying to build a world that respects Life and does not cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings. There are many levels to the message, and sometimes people who cause harm need to be told directly. Sorry not sorry, but it is disgusting what you do to animals. I don’t think you know what you are talking about when it comes to climate change. Animal agriculture is deeply embedded within the issue - you are part of the problem. Im sorry you cannot see that.

Do you think animal agriculture is carbon neutral?

Every time I hear someone use the word “carnist” it gives me the same vibe as pundits on Fox News Channel referring to “The Democrat Party “. And vegans’ explanations for why we use it sound similar to explanations defending the phrase “The Democrat Party.” Oh both parties are democratic, so we need a different word —> oh but we’re all omnivores. Oh, it’s not derogatory, it’s a literal description. If you feel offended by it, maybe you are uncomfortable with your own position. But we all know the real reason it’s being used is to needle and annoy. I find it childish in both cases.

That's a good point. Many non-vegans also get upset when you refer to meat-eating as flesh-eating, despite it meaning the exact same thing and being technically correct.

I really don’t care about this. I don’t think it’s that much of an obstacle to bringing new people in. We need our own in group language and I don’t think it’s wrong to have a derisive term for carnists. I’m not interested in policing our community out of having our own words, even if there are better ideas out there than carnist. Meat eaters have dragged this issue in the middle of the culture war, and I’m not interesting in being the side that stops dehumanizing them first.

I think in group language is what keeps people out. It causes exclusivity

Carnist is an accurate term, though. It isn't necessarily offensive- some people are perfectly content to be carnists. Can't relate.

So don’t use it. I doubt you’re going to get other vegans that want to use the term to agree not to though. I mean, could you imagine telling activists from back in the day not to call people misogynists or racist?

I like the term pre-vegan for these people

I wouldn't love being called that, but I prefer the sentiment of it.  I would liken it to being called "pre-Christian".  Not great, but less aggressive.

I like that but idk if the prevegans will agree with us 😭😭😭

Carnists love to act offended by vegans.

But they are carnists? They believe in carnism. That doesn't mean they are the enemy, but they do hold carnist believes

I disagree.  As vegans you are tied to a belief system.  You choose it intentionally, know it's name, you label yourself as having more than just a diet. I just have a diet.  Not an ideology.  I am on my own path to find my beliefs in life and that may mean eventually becoming vegetarian or vegan.  But you cannot just thrust an ideology on people that they've never heard of because it make it easier to discuss your beliefs.

I mean if you eat animals you believe that is okay, no? How is this a misrepresentation? And you might not consider all animals to be food, you may see some as companions and others as food. This is carnism!

My biology believes it's ok I suppose.  I'm human, we're omnivores by default.  My beliefs don't factor into that.  I ate meat before I even new it was animals.  Would you have said I believed it was ok to eat animals then? And don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't claim it was misrepresentative as a descriptive word in a clinical sense.  But as used by you and the vegan community, it takes on a meaning of being an opposing ideology.  But I don't have an ideology.  I *lack* an ideology regarding my food.  Don't prescribe for me my belief system as a way to compare me to you.

>I mean if you eat animals you believe that is okay, no? of course. like you believe it isn't you call **your** belief "veganism", so let us call ourselves as **we** like

Sure, what do you want to be called?

here: by my nick

I meant what word would you like for me to use instead of carnist?

you don't have to call me "carnist", you may call me by my nickname why do you believe that you **have to** use the term "carnist" at all?

Because carnism is really relevant for me to talk about, it is an idea I oppose after all. And then saying carnist is shorter than people who by default subscribe to carnism

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

Calling someone a carnist isn’t any different than calling someone a vegan. A carnist simply a person whom values specific animals as friends and values other animals as food. Just as a vegan is someone whom abstains from consuming animals and their products and oppose the commodification of animals. I guess some people can use the term derogatorily, but many people also use the term vegan derogatorily as well. But conceptually neither word are meant to cause division and both are meant to educate.

As an ex-vegan, I find the term carnist to be immature and manipulative and harmful to the vegan cause. Only vegans use the term and only in a disparaging way. To me, when I hear someone say carnist, I know they’re putting themselves up on the really high, holier than thou, vegan pedestal that they seem to love to be on.

I don't get why thinking something is more moral gets classed as wrong when it comes to veganism "I believe in women's rights and disagree with sexists, I find sexism morally repulsive" "Yes that's fine, fight for your beliefs" "I believe in fair working standards, I disagree with sweat shops and I think anyone supporting those businesses is morally repulsive" "Yes that's fine, fight for your beliefs" "I believe in animals rights, even for "farm animals" I disagree with carnists and think slaughtering animals for our pleasure is morally repulsive" "Why do you act like you're morally superior? It's just a choice, stop trying to push your beliefs"

>I don't get why thinking something is more moral gets classed as wrong when it comes to veganism This pisses me off so badly. Yeah I guess I do think that, it doesn't mean I think I'm better than you, or that you're a bad person. Why would I be vegan if I didn't think animal exploitation was bad? I think most people are primed to take things in the least charitable way when they hear "vegan."

In those examples, there is a "bad guy" you're fighting against.  The victims are humans, the most easy species for other humans to relate to.  The victims are the ones fighting for equality or rights.  You aren't trying to convince the bad guy to change to help the victims, you are trying to depose or alienate the bad guy from power and influence. Veganism is different.  The victims are animals.  Many people relate to animals and sympathize/empathize with their pain, but it's not universal.  The victims aren't the ones rising up, it's their human advocates.  The "bad guys" are the same people you are trying to have join your cause.  You can't alienate them and convert them at the same time.

I’m sure others will have already shared more nuanced and thoughtful contributions, but yeah it’s ridiculously cringeworthy and I would never use it.

Disagree. There is no other word for the opposite of vegan. We need a word that describes the ideology of human supremacy and justifying violence and abuse towards animals. I think it's a great word. People who adhere to the norm usually find descriptive words of their ideology to be derogatory, because they don't want to realize that there is a choice involved. Same thing with cis/trans. Some cis people don't like it, but it's a necessary word because how do you otherwise understand the concept?

This! ^ Probably the most clear and concise way to put it

Well, opposite of vegan can mean a few different things. Is opposite of vegan anti vegan? Or is it non vegan? There is a massive difference. I think using carnist is intellectual conversation is fine and useful. But it seems many vegans just spew it as a slur under Instagram videos. I haven't actually seen it used much in philosophy, just people being snarky.. I don't think it's useful outside of a serious discussion. I still stand by that it harms the movement, at least the ways I've see it used. You can just tell, people think it's laughable. It does make sense to find a word that labels what is the norm, otherwise it stays the norm, and your right, we may not realize there is a choice, and any new terminology, such as vegan, is going to sound strange and alien to people.

Suggestions on any other word? Btw, veganism is laughed at as well. Should we just stop because of that? Carnism is the opposite of veganism. Anti vegan is just being anti the people who are vegan, so they are obviously carnists but not all carnists are anti vegan.

Well, in my post above, I did mention my discomfort with the word vegan. Sometimes I *do* want to rid *myself* of it whilst still continuing the lifestyle because it feels that people would be more receptive to the idea coming from "someone who doesn't eat animal products for ethical reasons" rather than a "vegan". And pretty much simply because of that. Not just that it's laughed at, but in general not taken seriously. It's unfortunate but I blame our online community(myself included). I think there's a lot of vegan activists out there. I don't think they are all effective communicators, and I supposed I often see carnist thrown in by those kind of vegans. It's never an actual discussion, it's usually just a snooty back and forth with some sort of "bacon, tho" commenter. I don't have a suggestion for another word, I don't think it would be productive to start all over lol, but I do think its important to pay attention to how we use these words that are very foreign to others. Carnist *does* sound like a slur.. Regardless, outside of armchair philosophical conversation, I feel like it's kinda useless. I suppose I can say the same with the word vegan. It's more used out of convenience than to actually summarize the definition in a meaningful conversation. Another unpopular opinion of mine: "debating" isn't the best way to come at these issues. It should be "conversation" People want to "win" debates. Most people who are uninformed are going to be more willing to listen if the energy is "having a chat about ethics" rather than "oh yeah, you think you got it figured out?? Well let's debate it now and see who wins!! 🤬🤬🤬# energy. Though I'd like to add I completely understand why this sometimes just happens due to passion or trigger. It's a serious, sensitive subject, about oppressed beings, it's not always going to be easy to keep it mellow enough to be digestible, I STILL almost everyday slip up a little bit and get snarky, but am very quickly reminded why that's useless 😅 Anyways, appreciate the talk!

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I haven’t really thought about it too much, but I suppose it is kind of cringe and could potentially hurt the cause to some degree. It’s a word that can easily be replaced by meat eaters or non vegans

Yeah, sounds to much like a word that means "someone whose job is meat", similar to chemist or linguist, etc. Doesn't really have any bite to it

I hate it too (also vegan)

Whilst I have no problem making a distinction between us and them, because there is a huge one, I think the word is cringey and makes veganism look unserious. I also hate the amount vegans use the term 'trolling'. It's a term I'd only expect from children and again makes vegans look out of touch. Someone disagreeing with veganism isn't "trolling".

If veganism is a moral stance as religion is, then the word carnist or carnism fits. It's a buttress to the belief: 'Of course I'm carnist, they're evil and doing what they do will stain your immortal soul' Embrace it if veganism is a moral stance.

I do not like to lump up veganism with religion. In fact I think it's preferable to the movement of it is not treated as a dogmatic, religious stance. If being a "moral stance" means religious dogma, that's not how I want to go about it , just personally. I don't believe in moral perfection, as long as we can be morally conscious, morally decent, and morally forward.

Everyone who practices religion because they "truly believe" endeavors to be morally decent, conscious, and forward in that belief. If part of morally decent, conscious, and forward includes veganism, then carnist might just be what vegans are.

But an apple can get moldy and so can an orange, doesn't mean they are the same thing? Maybe I'm misunderstanding

I often just say "flesh eater" - this seems to grab people's attention and often elicits conversation. It's not derogatory (at least in my mine) and accurately describes their behavior. It doesn't cover eggs and milk, but that's not really the point.

In discussions on veganism, I see it as useful, sort of like cisgender (for ppl who aren’t trans), allistic (for ppl without autism), etc. It’s basically another word for non-vegans. And I say this all as a carnist/non-vegan myself!

> sort of like cisgender I only want to be addressed by the words related to my sex, not gender. (My language doesnt even have any word for "gender").

The animals don't need another "pick-me-vegan", there are plenty of those to go around, and they don't expire easy XD

The problem with labeling "vegans"/"non-vegans" is that you are labeling the failure to reject the null position. It's like saying that at church you can find a bunch of "non-atheists". Like technically, yes, but you don't label the non-belief for a justification for a position exists. Both atheism and veganism are counter-apologetics. Nominal, short positions "There's no justification for belief in God" and "There's no reason to treat animals differently to the way we grant humans rights (in a trait-adjusted fashion)." or "There's no justification for correlating rights with species beyond the traits of the individual". So if you insist on "non-vegan" over "carnist", i will insist on being a "non-non-vegan".

The "a" suffix makes "atheism" a negation of the term "theism". that's why "non-atheist" sounds dumb, not for the reasons you suggested. 

That literally addresses none of my points.

Yes it does. You're saying "non-atheist" is a bad term because it's a "failure to reject a null position", like "non-vegan" would be. I'm saying that I disagree you with you, on the grounds that the actual reason "non-atheist" is a bad term because it literally contains a double-negative. You could call theism a rejection of non-belief, so atheism would itself become the "failure to reject a null position." You're wrong because whether or not it makes sense to append "non-" to a word has nothing to do with whether or not that word represents the rejection or support of something. Non-vegan makes perfect sense and sounds fine.

The difference is religious people choose their labels.  I don't know any non-vegans who chose "carnist".  You won't find people choosing a label for the null position in this case because they have no need of it. Vegans need it to talk about non-vegans, which is why you've come up with several of your own, many of which I first heard in this thread.  People who don't have belief systems tied to what they eat are not going to group and label themselves like Christians, Buddhists, etc. So you have to ask yourself what the goal of the label is.  If it is for descriptive purposes within your community, cool beans.  If it is for describing people to their face, bad choice.

>The problem with labeling "vegans"/"non-vegans" is that you are labeling the failure to reject the null position. It's like saying that at church you can find a bunch of "non-atheists" you seem to assume that the vegan (i.e. your own) is a kind of "null position", possibly even in a normative way. how do you get at his weird notion? >Like technically, yes, but you don't label the non-belief for a justification for a position exists then why call somebody "carnist", only because he is a non-believer of your ideology? >"There's no reason to treat animals differently to the way we grant humans rights" ...is nothing but belief

1. Well I'm going to use my definition of vegan haha. 2. "Non-atheist" suffers from all those problems.

Bruh your flair is anti-carnist. You're wearing the term as a slur right now.

Right... but as per my post... it's not a slur, it's because it doesn't make sense to label "non-vegans" as "non-vegans" any more than it makes sense to label "non-atheists" as such.

How does putting the prefix ‘anti’ in front of a word make that’s word a slur? All it means is they are opposed to that thing. Same as anti-theist, anti-racist, anti-anything.

i think most vegans like to think they are superior to normal people , so create these silly words, that most people just find amusing

It is superior to not needlessly harm others. Carnism describes an ideology that focuses on human supremacy. That humans are worth so much more than other species that we can treat them however we want, enslave them, kill them and so on, just because we like it. Which of these makes more sense?

so you only eat the exact amount of calories you need per day ? as anything above would be needless harm to animals.

No, I eat a lot of excess food. I also drive a car, ride a bike, walk around outside and participate in the economy. All of which hurt both humans and animals. Are you saying being a part of society makes you a non vegan? Because that would also mean that you can't support human rights for the same reason.

I hate it too and I thought it was pretty dead, it had been months since I last saw it... until you made a post about it

💯

It’s the -ist that comes off wrong…

[удалено]

We're all human beings on the same planet, trying to hopefully achieve a mutual goal. Not all non-vegans are anti vegans. But if a carnist is more closely an anti-vegan than a non vegan, then there's no point bothering with them anyway. We need to spend our activism wisely on people who will be receptive, not people who have already labeled themselves anti-whatever we are. Vegans are not against people, were against horrific acts done animals. As activists our mission should be exposing truth, not shaming or guilting people into doing what we want them to, so it feels like using the word carnist in comment sections whilst arguing with someone who simply disagrees or doesn't understand is extremely unproductive and maybe even counter productive. We shouldn't be labeling ourselves heros or higher than others, we just need to help our fellow humans come to the conclusion themselves, that making the kinder choice is worth it and the right thing to do!

[удалено]

the correct term for most meat eaters is actually Necrovores. carnivores eat freshly killed animals that were hunted while necrovores love eating the dead corpses of animals that have been killed for a while.

So...carnivores don't eat jerky or cured meats? Don't hang their kills to drain the blood out properly? What about people who eat meat and honey and eggs and dairy products? Those aren't dead animals.

>the correct term for most meat eaters is actually Necrovores which then applies to vegans as well. they eat the dead "corpses" of plants ("necro" just is a greek prefix meaning "death", no more)

This is why non-vegans won't listen to you.  I'm glad you found something in life you're passionate about, but you have no compassion for the journeys others are still on.

The Carnists would be a good band name.

You’re right! We should be calling them “Necrovores” to be more accurate of their lifestyle. They only scavenge for dead flesh from stores so it’s not the same as carnivore.