75% of the anti-piracy discussions I see rarely blame companies like Nintendo or Disney and always try to talk about how piracy is immoral, and you should feel “dirty” for doing it. My question is why do people seem to hate those who pirate more than the bad practices of mega-corporations or the fact that they don’t want to preserve their media?
Propaganda works.
The put out a lot of propaganda saying that copying files is stealing. They point to intellectual property rights laws as if that means intellectual property is justified because of the existence of laws.
There’s propaganda, definitely. Also, there are people who simply don’t care what they watch. They’ll just open Netflix and watch whatever they see on the home screen. It’s hard for them to understand why I might wanna watch some Iranian movie from the 80s.
Because if you aren’t the bad guys then they’re just essentially the low level stooges of the evil mastermind just doing mundane evil shit for no discernable reason.
Where as if you’re the bad guy they’re virtuous principled people just doing what’s right (allowing them to have complete dominion over the moral high ground)
As opposed to everyone else calling them bootlickers, I think there is likely a subset of people like this who are not considering piracy against the big corporations as unethical, but the “trickle down effect” of piracy towards smaller business/individuals.
For example, if you were to pirate Starfield, no one would really care. If you were to pirate something like BlackOps, most people wouldn’t care (and those that do are corporate bootlickers). However, what about pirating indie games, or music VST’s, or circumventing a patreon from someone with under 100 supporters?
There’s two camps when I see anti-piracy comments; the bootlickers, and those that have the idea that pirates pirate everything relentlessly. The fact of the matter is that piracy does not hurt big corporations, but we cannot say that is also true for small developers publishing their game on their own, and vocal anti-piracy, or rather artist-in-mind individuals, will let the world know that we should support independent artsits and not pirate.
Now, whether or not indie games are getting pirated is a whole different story. And really, what this comes down to is just having the opportunity to purchase in a way that supports the pirates ease of access.
Also, it completely ignores the ethical aspect of piracy which is why support a company that doesn’t have your interests at the forefront of its business practices. Which is a very similar reason to decide to not pirate – I enjoy It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, I would like to see more if it, I will pay Hulu and watch the show to tell them to make more IASIP.
If you like something, don’t pirate it if you want more of it. It’s actually very simple. If you do like it but can’t support it for personal reasons, don’t expect to get more of it.
Which of course, for the anti-piracy crowd is another sentence for, “you didn’t pay to watch it so they cancelled my favorite show!”
Tl;DR - A poor crossover between an individuals enjoyment of corporate content and an supporting independent artists living wage.
hell yeah i’m the villain of the story, and i love being immoral
People buy into the BS sold by companies, they eat it all up without thinking twice about it. It’s easier to point fingers at each other than at companies when companies are paying so much money to attack end-users.
Ignorant idiots who can’t think for themselves will always follow the narrative that is forced down their throat.
See also “The war on drugs”. The majority of the people who will demonise you for choosing to use “illegal” substances will also be smashing their livers with alcohol which is more detrimental to both themselves and society than a lot of other drugs on a weekly or often daily basis.
Just because it is legal they feel like they are fine to not do their own independent research into what these things actually do to them and how fucking addictive they are.
I still see people parroting these narratives about stuff like weed even after it has been legalized. Some people are too far down the propaganda rabbit hole.
just conversely, I think people were a bit too convinced that weed is totally harmless for a while there. i think in more recent years there’s been some healthy pushback on that and people understand the science a bit better. obviously it should still be legal.
They’re just outsourcing their ethics.
Man, i love Recettear: An Item Shop’s Tale. I’m always happy seeing it referenced.
I feel like I could probably use that one reference in every other negative thread about the world these days, great game though!
I blame the “piracy is stealing” advertising/propaganda. It was super effective, given that we all remember it.
Editing to add one of my favorite videos in the other direction, Copying is Not Theft.
I don’t remember ever seeing such an advertisement in my life.
YOU WOULDN’T DOWNLOAD A CAR
That “you wouldn’t download a car” became the meme while the ad itself said “you wouldn’t steal a car” drives home exactly how effective these ads were at conflating the two.
I totally would
and then download a house
In this day, I’m pretty sure the entirety of the middle class and below would if they could.
NOT ONLY WOULD I DOWNLOAD A CAR, I WOULD THEN WORK ON A WAY TO LET EVERYONE DOWNLOAD CARS
You’ve never seen this? Never heard “home taping is killing music” or “don’t copy that floppy”?
No to all of those. I don’t remember ever seeing a floppy. Oldest media formats I remember using are cds and cassettes. And that was in elementary school.
ig the piracy is theft advertising was more of a 90s thing that died down in the 2000s if those are your examples?
Yeah, I guess so. Best I can recall, most people I knew were either avid pirates or casually saw it as low-level criminal activity by the early 2000s.
I think piracy is immoral but I still partake in it and I don’t hate anyone for doing so.
It’s like eating meat.
piracy is moral and should be encouraged actually
Why do you think piracy is immoral?
The only reason there’s content for us to pirate is because there are still people paying for it. If it weren’t for them, nobody would be spending millions on new movies or games. They’re the ones funding our content, and we’re just freeriding.
I think a good measure for morality is to imagine wether the world would be a better place if everyone acted as I do. In this case, I don’t think it would.
That’s a common misconception. But it’s not true. Artists will keep making art whether they’re paid or not. Anti-piracy rhetoric tends to come from large corporations (AAA game studios, movie studios, publishing houses, record labels) who demand ever-increasing profits, not from the artists themselves. The people who actually do the work to make games, movies, songs, books, whatever are basically never well-paid, instead their corporate overlords make all the profit and pay the people who actually make the art you enjoy as little as they can possibly get away with, just as with every other job under capitalism.
Pirating media does absolutely no harm unless you’re pirating from a small indie creator. But if you just want to play the latest Ubisoft slop or watch the latest Marvel movie, go ahead and pirate. The money you’d spend on them go straight into the pockets of wealthy executives, not to the artists who do the work.
I think it’s objectively a true statement that the vast majority of big budget hollywood movies, video games and TV-series would stop existing if nobody was paying for them.
Obviously not all media would go away. I’ve never gotten paid for my photography or YouTube videos because I’m not making them for money. Same applies to a ton of other content creators as well.
While your claim is true—big budget movies, etc., need someone to pay for them—the unspoken corollary you’re implying isn’t true—that without the current economic model, no-one would pay for big budget productions, or that undermining the current model via piracy will reduce the rate at which they are funded.
The current model is: massive corporate copyright-holders can purchase the right the profit from an artistic production. They pay for its production up front. Even though we have a technology that can costlessly copy these products and very cheaply distribute them to almost everyone who wants them, the copyright holders maximise their profits by a) crippling this capacity by spend considerable money, labor and human expertise on technologies that artificially limit copying, and b) use state-supported coercion (e.g., fines, lawsuits, police, etc), to punish individuals who would circumvent these crippling technologies. To be clear, these copyright holders still make massive profits, vastly beyond what any individual they are persecuting for copyright infringement could ever dream of. Their policing of piracy is to make even greater profits.
Even though this is how big artistic productions are funded today, it is not true that in the absence of this economic model, big artistic productions would not be funded. The demand for these products would still exist, and if there’s one thing our society excels at, it’s directing capital to meet demand.
Alternative models that could fund big artistic productions:
- a centralised fund we all contribute to in proportion to our means (e.g., progressive taxation), that pays artists in proportion to how much their product is consumed (like the Spotify model, but publically administered, like TV licences)
- many small scale investors rather than corporate monoliths (like Kickstarter), whose investments are recouped by a) privileged access to get product and b) the still highly profitable cinema and dvd markets whose constraints (physical premises/media) are not compatible with free copying.
- a legislated solution that protects copyright until artists are sufficiently recompensed and then allows free distribution.
These are just some examples of the many possible alternative models for funding large art projects and deciding who should profit from them and how much. However the details aren’t nearly as important (many different models could work), as the ultimate driver: whether our actions/systems/laws enhance or undermine demand for the art.
Piracy does undermine the current (corrupt, exploitative, reprehensible) economic model but it also increases demand for the media it distributes more widely and equitably. It doesn’t, as you imply, reduce the likelihood of big budget media existing in the future, it increases the likelihood of it existing in a more fair and equitable way, that harness our ability to freely copy rather than crippling it for the benefit of the ultra-wealthy copyright-buyers.
I agree we probably wouldn’t get any more Assassin’s Creed or Deadpool and Wolverine. Very likely those kinds of media would die out in a world where no one pays for media. I have a hard time saying that’s a bad thing. We’d instead have more weird little indie projects, which are so, so much better in every way. But sure, if you feel morally queasy about “stealing” (it’s not stealing, it’s copying) from giant corporations who make artistically bankrupt crap, I’m not going to convince you otherwise, and it would be a waste of my time to try and do so.
Maybe I should point out here that sometimes I do go out of my way to pay for media (especially games) when I don’t have to. I bought Dwarf Fortress on Steam, even though the devs give it away for free and I donated to them a couple times before they released it on Steam. They are living off the money people pay for Dwarf Fortress and I’m so glad they’re able to do so. I also bought my sister a copy of Pathologic 2 she has never (and probably will never) play because I bought my copy on sale and loved it and felt bad that I hadn’t paid full price to a dev team that put their heart and soul into the game and had it sell abysmally for some reason. (Side note, play Pathologic 2, it’s good!) I bought the Celeste soundtrack from Lena Raine’s bandcamp because I love it so much, even though it’s extremely easy to find and I’ve actually lost access to my bandcamp account.
I guess I’m saying there’s nuance here and I like it when actual artists who make good art are paid. It’s just that in our current society, buying a DVD or paying for Netflix or paying for Xbox gamepass or anything like that doesn’t benefit the artists, the vast majority of any money you spend to acquire media goes straight to wealthy executives and I just don’t see anything wrong with not giving them more money than they’re already getting.
I think you’d still get some big budget projects from publicly funded art grants and crowdfunding. In a society where IP and patents either don’t exist or are much less restrictive, a lot of code and assets will be freed up to reuse when you make your “new” game, lowering the barrier to entry.
I expect we would see more things like doctor who; low budget, thousands and thousands of episodes because it’s beloved by millions of people who keep demanding more.
Yeah, good point! In a world without intellectual property rights, of course there would still be large projects, they’d just be, well, actually good and not shitty focus-grouped sequels.
Capitalism does a very good job at making people who do not and never will hold capital into sheepdogs for the cause. You get someone addicted enough to your slop, they’ll advertise for you, they’ll evangelize for you, they’ll even come report to you who didn’t pay ‘their fair share’ for entry.
They’re well-trained dogs, incog. Might as well ask why a dog chases cars.
For me i’m always hearing people complain about these companies bad practices. What you hear is based off of who you listen to.
Alot of “official sources” are actually owned by alot of forprofit corporations, so of course you’re going to hear piracy bad from those outlets.
But if you follow some youtubers, like Yongyea, you will find voices that actively call out companies like Nintendo and ea’s bad practices.
It’s because they are paying money for something and you’re getting a better deal. See that’s not fair. Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high. They tell themselves that their money is going to the artists. And if you believe that, then piracy is harming artists in a very direct way.
Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.
This “vegans have a superiority complex” take is a thought-terminating cliché ultimately rooted in projection. Since vegans make you feel self-conscious about the unethicality of your carnist tendencies, you divert to accusations of a “superiority complex” when that is just the result of you internally grappling with the cognitive dissonance you have when it comes to funding animal exploitation that you have no proper justification for.
Veganism is a justice movement, and vegans express disdain for non-vegans because they often double down on their oppressive tendencies that keep animals enslaved, exploited, and slaughtered. I don’t think I’m superior to you because, just like me, you have the capacity to understand why you shouldn’t support the oppression of sentient beings. Not only do you have the capacity to understand it, but you can take that to its logical conclusion and live in a way that is in accordance with said understanding.
Also, the framing is off here. A principled ethical vegan doesn’t see veganism as a “benefit;” we see it as a moral obligation and baseline. Saying that veganism comes with “benefits” is like saying that refraining from calling racial minorities ethnic slurs comes with “benefits,” when it’s actually just basic decency toward BIPOC.
Oh my, I literally read the comment you’re replying to backwards! I thought they said that carnists hate vegans. I’m glad you’re here to read properly and give a great response!
There’s no projection. I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors. Zero. I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering. It’s not that I don’t understand vegans. I do. But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals. Because we differ on that fundamental belief, we can reach no understanding about the ethics beyond that.
And I think it is a fair comparison. People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume. And in both the case of vegans, and those who pay for streaming, the perceived benefit of that choice is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. But it’s really not a big deal to me. I was just trying to answer OPs question. I think your response only validates my analogy. Thank you.
I do not equate death or servitude with suffering.
Holy mother of red flags.
Why do you think animals do not have consciousness? Do human animals have consciousness? And are non-human animal brains not remarkably similar to our own? Did we not come out of the same stuff, live on the same earth, and evolve from the same common ancestors? It seems the logical default to assume that non-human animals do experience the world in much the same way you or I do.
I feel no guilt for eating the diet of every single one of my ancestors.
Appeal to tradition.
I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering
Objectively false belief. Source
Also, saying “I do not equate death or servitude with suffering” is just using an absurd personal opinion to invalidate objective considerations. It’d be like me saying, “I don’t associate shouting slurs at racial minorities with racism,” to validate such an act. In either case, neither distortion serves as a justification for this wicked behavior.
But it’s like a religion - you have a fundamental belief, not in god, but in the consciousness of animals.
False equivalence. One belief is speculative and far more abstract, but the other belief has legitimate concrete evidence to support it. Once again, read the very comprehensive analysis.
People who pay for media may also see it as an ethical baseline to pay for what you consume.
Again, this is a false equivalence, and it seems that you are abusing the notion of morality being subjective in order to justify an immoral act. You could also easily say something like “People who refrain from assaulting innocent people see it as an ethical baseline, but I don’t” as a bad attempt at justifying assaulting innocent people, but it won’t hold weight on its own. You have to provide a solid basis for why such an equivalence actually makes sense, but you do not. You just state it like it’s plainly obvious and doesn’t need further details.
This is so copey that it hardly deserves a full-fledged response. Please know that this comment isn’t the “own” you think it is. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles. Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains. Birds and mammals are on a higher level of consciousness than a lot of the animal kingdom. But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock. Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that. My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
You are a disgusting human. I’m actually appalled reading the shit you’re writing. It’s not often that I read such concentrated evil. You don’t think death and servitude cause suffering? You think domesticated animals choose to stay in factory farms? You’re a fucking ghoul.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness. They are just as aware and alive as fungi and plants. Otherwise we would feel great remorse when examining all the slaughtered insects on the front of our motor vehicles.
First of all, current data on the sentience of insects, crustaceans, and mollusks are, at the most, uncertain regarding whether or not these animals have sentience, not definitively conclusive in the direction of them not having sentience. And even if they were to actually not be sentient, this is honestly just a red herring unless these are the ONLY animals that you are responsible for the enslavement, exploitation, and slaughter of, but you are clearly very disingenuous. Other animals that you endorse being exploited and tortured, such as cows and pigs, objectively have been confirmed to have consciousness (read the fucking study), so how is this even relevant? As far as the point about running them over with motor vehicles, some degree of animal suffering like this is inevitable, but to purport that the existence of inevitable unintentional animal suffering justifies deliberately funding farm animals being shoved into gas chambers just for personal pleasure is nothing more than an appeal to futility fallacy. Humans have died in the construction of houses, but I’m not seeing you say that it’s okay to deliberately murder humans to eat them simply because so many people are living in houses and they cannot guarantee that the construction of such houses did not cause any human death.
Fish, are slightly more aware, but I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.
“I don’t attach much emotional weight to their very tiny brains.”
By you using such “I” phrasing, you are inadvertently admitting that you are not going off of scientific consensus (which you’ve already proved yourself to be really fucking bad at anyway), but rather “personal vibes about their tiny brains, bro.” Like, even this study provides support for this claim within the very first sentence of its abstract, in addition to all of the intricacies pertaining to the research conducted to gain this information, of course.
But not all death is painful. Many humans seek a dignified and painless death.
This is irrelevant, as we don’t necessarily say that it is morally acceptable to take the life of a human so long as you do it in a painless way. In these scenarios, you are referring to a human going through a “dignified and painless death.” These often involve matters of consensual euthanasia and/or mental illness.
If someone went into your house while you were sleeping at 3 AM and did an instantly lethal, painless blow to your head with a firearm, would you consider that morally acceptable due to the “painless” nature of the death?
Domesticated animals for the most part have the ability to escape, if they wanted to express their consciousness and free will. The process of domestication is an evolutionary choice. Chickens and other livestock are suffering today because their ancestors gave away their freedom for security.
I am baffled by how much you can reach. You are claiming that because humans have been able to seize the wild ancestors of modern-day domesticated farm animals, that means these animals “gave their freedom away.” You’re so rhetorically illiterate that I keep thinking with each read of your words that I will not see mental gymnastics more absurd than what you’ve already put out, but you keep proving me wrong! This is also a baseless claim, as you obviously were not around to witness how humans went about capturing these wild ancestors. It reeks of a victim-blaming mentality as well, saying that “If the animals didn’t want humans to exploit them, they should’ve just escaped!” This is not shocking for someone who “does not equate death or servitude with suffering,” though.
As far as the animals we have today, domesticated animals cannot last in the wild, so escaping could lead them into a dangerous situation as well; that’s exactly why we call them DOMESTICATED. Exploitative humans have selectively bred and genetically modified these animals to be meat, milk, and egg-producing machines. By utilizing manmade restraining devices, such as those that are literally called r— racks. I should add, humans keep these animals unable to escape, but they still try to escape in whatever capacity they can.
Actually I think dogs collectively suffer more than most of our livestock. For them, death is out of reach. Their suffering is prolonged. Their mutations and genetic deficiencies are cruel. Many dogs are born with such horrible genes and behaviors they have no hope of a quality life with humans. Very sad.
Wait a minute. I thought that you did not believe in the sentience of animals, so why do you worry about dogs? You’re contradicting yourself! Also, yes, dogs are also victims of speciesism, human supremacy, and animal exploitation, so don’t support the pet industry, and if you want to be logically consistent, eschew the dairy, egg, and meat industry while you’re at it.
Anyway, there is no objective truth on this matter. But I know you care so much about suffering, I just want to reassure you, that I feel no sorrow for livestock.
There are studies that objectively indicate these things, but seeing as how undialectical and unscientific you are, you have deliberately chosen to neglect the actual peer-reviewed studies I have sent you because you know that being faced with information that makes a strong case against your already abhorrent rhetoric would strike too much of a nerve.
Saying “I feel no sorrow for livestock” is just giving your personal opinion on a matter, but lacking sympathy for another sentient being still does not serve as a moral justification for the exploitation and slaughtering of that sentient being. If a Klansman said, “I feel no sorrow for black people,” surely you wouldn’t think that his lynchings are now morally justified, right?
Everything we eat and purchase impacts the animals on this planet. To exist is to impose suffering on the Earth. And I’m okay with that.
Once again, this is an appeal to futility. Yes, we all cause some degree of harm and suffering just by existing, but that doesn’t mean deliberately going out of your way to uphold harm and suffering is morally acceptable, and it certainly does not make the slavery aspect of animal oppression morally acceptable either. This isn’t about whether or not you’re okay with these things. Morality is a two-way street, just like how the Klansman in that hypothetical isn’t morally justified by neglecting the interests of his black victims and only focusing on what he thinks alone.
My opinion, is that vegans are drawing a line in sand so feint that it is erased by the slightest breeze.
My brother in Christ, you are the one who literally rejected fish sentience on the basis of pure vibes rather than evidence. If you’re going back to what you said about insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, then once again, I challenge you to tell me exactly how that justifies what you’re doing to animals that are not within those categories. You also seem to have sympathy for dogs even though you literally stated, “I do not believe animals to be sentient, and I do not equate death or servitude with suffering,” so whose lines are arbitrary again?
I nearly spared you this because you are so deeply unserious and one of the worst instances of a rhetorically illiterate carnist who spouts absurd takes in an effort to come off as some degree of logically consistent, but quite frankly, it’d truthfully just be far more honorable for you to own up to your shortcomings here.
You didn’t even have to bring up veganism to begin with, as the original thread has nothing to do with it. You brought it upon yourself because you saw a sliver of some chance to cope. If it’s striking that much of a nerve that you need to grasp at so many straws to attempt to defend carnism this poorly out of nowhere, then go vegan for fuck’s sake.
Insects, crustaceans, and mollusks do not have any form of consciousness.
OOC if I had a pet pig. Loved it. Gave it a full and happy life safe and warm in my house until one day it died of old age. Would it be okay to give the body to my destitute neighbours so they can feed their dogs?
No because their dog is also morally inferior for eating meat and should also be punished.
I do not believe animals to be sentient
And why do you believe that?
I do not equate death or servitude with suffering.
So you wouldn’t have any objections if you were taken as a slave and worked to death, right? Because those aren’t suffering?
And here’s that exact superiority complex on display for all to see.
Lets say you see a moral wrong that others ignore, often while admitting that they’re wrong to do so, and you alone act against that moral wrong despite it being hard and being mocked for your decision. How else would you feel? If you felt that being vegan was morally equal then you wouldn’t have become a vegan for ethical reasons in the first place. So by definition, you must believe yourself (in this specific area) morally superior, and based on that one data point, it’s probably safe to generalize that you’re morally superior to the majority of non-vegans, just like how you probably consider yourself morally superior to people who litter or hit their kids.
How so? I literally stated that they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation. Such an understanding isn’t hard to grasp, and I’m no ascended, especially enlightened person for being vegan. If I believed myself to be, I’d have no reason to hold others to the same standard. The incentive lies in the fact that carnism comes with victims; veganism isn’t about me.
Regardless, this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché. It’s a loophole to avoid engaging with ideas via focusing on the people expressing such ideas instead. Do you have any actual insight regarding the assertions I’m making or is it just cope?
they have the exact same capacity as me to understand why veganism is a moral obligation.
This is a “begging the question” logical fallacy
this is an ad hominem and, as I stated, a thought-terminating cliché.
veganism is a moral obligation
carnism comes with victims
is it just cope?
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they’re morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You’re projecting here.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
This is a “begging the question” logical fallacy
How is asserting “It doesn’t seem morally superior to hold others to the exact same moral standard as me” circular reasoning? Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
What thoughtful discussion arises from someone repeatedly telling you that they’re morally superior to you for choosing one specific diet over another? You’re projecting here.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice. And once again, this isn’t about whether vegans are “morally superior” or not. You can engage in ideas without using such an ad hominem as a cushion for your own guilt, but you are still actually refusing to do so. There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a “superiority complex” than any other subject. For instance, I take it and hope that you wouldn’t say “anti-racists think they’re so superior to racists 🙄,” but doing so holds the exact same amount of weight as what you’re doing right now with veganism. You’re using a thought-terminating cliché to degrade the person asserting an idea rather than discussing the idea itself.
I have no issues with someone being vegan, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
There is a reason why I said “veganism isn’t about me.” You are committing victim erasure by glossing over the fact that I made very clear that veganism is a justice movement that takes a stand for victims. And once again, you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans “self-righteous” and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the “superiority of their choices” rather than engage in and advocate for a justice movement.
Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your morals are the “correct morals” while everyone else who doesn’t align with you is incorrect. That’s a textbook definition of this fallacy.
You are disingenuously undermining what veganism is by phrasing it as a trivial dietary choice.
That’s exactly what it is. Disagree? Explain in detail; don’t just say it like it’s obvious and a “no shit” kind of take.
There is no reason why veganism, as a subject, should get an automatic quick dismissal via accusations of a “superiority complex” than any other subject.
Where has that happened here? I challenge you to quote the comment stating as much. Seems like you’re strawmanning here.
I said “veganism isn’t about me.”
you are just repeating the same exact issue of ad hominem and a thought-terminating cliché by calling vegans “self-righteous” and disingenuously strawmanning them as people who just want to circlejerk about the “superiority of their choices”
“Veganism isn’t about me, but if you criticize me personally, you’re criticizing veganism!”
This is hilariously illogical. It reads like someone whose brain is short circuiting from all the cognitive dissonance.
I have no issues with someone not supporting animal torture, but I take issue with self-righteous people such as yourself who can’t help but talk about how superior their choices are.
There is no functional difference between your original text and my bolded replacement. To be a carnist is to, through your actions, support animal torture.
Hmm. Claims to not support animal torture yet joins hexbear and tortures all of us mammals on Lemmy any time one of you “writes” a comment. I’m seeing a disconnect in your reasoning here…
Carnists don’t count
Oh my, I literally read the comment you’re replying to backwards! I thought they said that carnists hate vegans. I’m glad you’re here to read properly and give a great response!
Same reason vegans hate on omnivores - they’ve taken the high road and the benefits are small while the cost is high.
Nah, that’s not why we hate you
When Netflix was just in, their subscribers got the better deal. But currently, tech companies are doing their best to squeeze customers dry for every cent.
Tech corps made the deal bad, piracy didn’t change
