this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1002 points (99.3% liked)
Flippanarchy
480 readers
239 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You sound like the dudes who find a thread about women's issues and shout "yeah but what about men's issues!"
You deserve to be heard but can you do it without turning it into whataboutisn.
Do you even know what whataboutism is ?
His post is entirely on point regarding the op. You can agree or disagree with his view of it, but to say that he's trying to deflect onto something else is myopic.
Unless you think his post is sarcastic and is trying to downplay the topic in the op ? But then that's just a literacy issue.
Bringing up climate change doesn’t relate to the topic at hand
It’s fine to use it supplementally to legality vs morality but not as a standalone argument
You can be vegan for many reason - climate change being among them. However, if you're in it for the ethics side of things, it's less important and just an added bonus. In this case, it's clear from context that climate change is not in focus right now but the parallel between unjustifiably killing people and animals and their legality.
Who brought up climate change ?
The person talking about animal genocide
Can you cite where they mentioned that ? Either it's in another post or they did not. They explicitly talk about genocide, so probably more about animal rights than climate action.
https://lemmy.ca/post/37769505/14075891
Animal rights doesn’t fit genocide because there’s no mass extinction. For instance there’s more cows and chickens today than any other point in history
Climate change fits genocide because there’s mass extinction. Whole ecosystems wiped out so we can drive to the next city
There are no words that accurately apply to other animals and describe the severity of the situation. And it's like that on purpose.
If I would have said murder, you'd say murder doesn't apply to non-human animals. It's only when a human kills another human.
I chose those words because there are none to describe the horrors that are happening.
Why doesn’t murder work?
It doesn't quite capture the cruelty or severity of the situation.
Imagine if in the Holocaust instead of using gas chambers to just kill off everyone, instead they bred them and then bred their kids and shoved their kids into gas chambers and then ate them and then shoved their kids into gas chambers and then ate them continually for hundreds of years.
It truly is the worst crime to ever be committed.
I think that's a bit pedantic. When talking about the genocide of animals it's generally in the context of their suffering, not in the context of climate change.
Killing them by itself is not "bad" for the climate, but having too many of them and having them take up loads of resources is.
Plus there may not be extinction because we keep breeding them, but the number of animals slaughtered every year would put the Holocaust to shame if we held animals into higher regard than currently (hence this topic being brought up)
Then they are wrong on top of being irrelevant
Wrong about what ? It being a genocide?
Is being semantically right the only thing that matters?
Even if we agree the term genocide is not correct, why would this point be irrelevant in a discussion about lawfulness and morality?
Edit: Thinking about, it would be more akin to slavery, but that's still very much in line with the op
I feel like the other person forgot what the entire original original post is about. It's all about "just because something is legal doesn't mean its good" and this other person is like "killing animals isn't genocide" but the whole idea is "killing animals is legal, but that doesn't make it right". What's that other person on about lol
Yeah I feel all this thread is just a knee jerk reaction because it's something tangential to veganism or something. The more I see this kind of topic brought up on Lemmy or elsewhere, the more I notice the immediate rejection of debate.
Even more staggering here when imo it's related to the topic at hand and not just spam in unrelated threads.
Preach. Not sure if it's cognitive dissonance or the fact that your views are challenged in the slightest, but it's saddening. Animals are our pals and the fact that they're treated like lesser beings is sickening to me
See my original comment
It can be used as an example but not standalone as an argument
The Holocene extinction event has been going for millenia. Every acre of farmland is an acre where wild animals can't live. There's more cows but the aurochs are gone. There's more cats but they kill the birds. We genocide native species in favor of domesticated species.
No, it's serious and I'd disagree, it isn't on topic there's a clear implied meaning given recent events.
Does it fall on the fringes of the same reasoning? Yes. However given that reply is structured as a rebuttal in contrast to the post it appears to me to imply a missed issue with hasn't been addressed despite the discussion of the intended message which would be whataboutism.
Also questioning others comprehension just looks pretty in an "I am very smart way"
I don't see how it's a rebuttal. And in my mind he got the same reaction people would give in "those times" when somebody mentioned that slavery or segregation is bad.
"Yeah sure the Holocaust was bad but this is whataboutism, it isn't on topic, we're not talking about slavery here" has the same vibe as your post.
Sure I can understand the topic being the USA going fascist mode, but it's not obvious and the topic of the image is literally "things can be legal and immoral". Imo (and I hope) that animal rights will be seen some day as the fourth example in this image. Without people getting attention to it, nothing will change. And instead of talking about it, it's shut down.
He's not derailing the entire post, he has posted an opinion that goes in the same direction as the op and he's being chastised because it doesn't align with your views.
If you just want to discuss authoritarianism more than the moral/ethics aspect of it, you're welcome to. But to say that this doesn't have its place here is wrong imho.
Btw sorry for the ad hominem, but it's grand coming from you when you directly compared the guy to an incel because he expressed an opinion. (Plus that section was clearly sarcastic so if you take offense from this... Well..)
You sound like someone from .world... Oh.. You are!
can you imagine jumping in instance based discourse instead of trying to defend your position.
What is there to defend? You can see what is happening for yourself at https://watchdominion.org/
You're the one that has to defend your continued support of abuse of other animals.
Cowspiracy, Seaspiracy, Gamechangers (to a lesser extent since it's focused on the fitness side of things - still very interesting), Earthlings for more on-topic documentaries
franklin's comments are so typical of his instance 🙄