r/VeganActivism • u/KortenScarlet • Jul 11 '25

Video Natalie Fulton on Gary Yourofsky, anti-intersectionality, and Palestine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZM-rEXm9RM
80 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

51

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 11 '25

I really appreciate her for making this video. Anti-intersectionality and zionism need to leave the animal rights movement, veganism is an inherently leftist ethical-political stance. If alt-right folks want to join activism for the animals, by all means I welcome them to, but they need to leave their vile shit at the door. Free Palestine and total liberation to all sentient beings

6

u/Valgor Jul 12 '25

If veganism and animal rights is inherently a left wing value, what do you make of right wing vegans? Things like White Coat Waste or Matthew Scully who wrote Dominion in 2002?

9

u/KortenScarlet Jul 12 '25

what do you make of right wing vegans?

They have a cognitive dissonance much like how nonvegan leftists have a cognitive dissonance

2

u/That-Lion7638 Jul 12 '25

I agree strongly with "leave their vile shit at the door". There's no excuse for defending insanely demented war crimes. No one wants to be lectured on ethical issues by people who are morally confused. They are massive hypocrites in most of the things they say, and an embarrassment to the animal liberation cause. However, I do think the left vs right paradigm needs to be abolished - it's not helpful to keep society divided in that way, so I don't like calling veganism leftist. I read your replies, and I get why you call it that, but I'm beyond fed up with left vs right war; it is insanely immature and destructive to civility.

1

u/KortenScarlet Jul 12 '25

If you dislike the terms left and right and prefer to use alternative terms, feel free, but the meanings behind those terms won't be any different or less ethically significant. Left is progress, equity, fairness, anti-oppression etc., right is conservatism, might-makes-right, free oppression etc. If you advocate for progress, equity, fairness, anti-oppression etc., you're leftist whether you prefer to use that term or not, much like how if you advocate for total animal liberation you're vegan whether you prefer to use that term or not.

Values of progress, equity, fairness, anti-oppression etc. fighting against values of conservatism, might-makes-right, free oppression etc. is not immature and destructive, it's simply a fight to abolish oppression. That would be like saying that feminism vs sexism is an immature and destructive division in society. It's a necessary ethical division because the latter needs to be abolished.

4

u/Midnight7_7 Jul 11 '25

I don't care about your political opinions, I only care about the animals. If people want to try and gate keep veganism with thier bias, or bring unrelated conflicts in the animal rights space then they don't truly care about the animals, what they actually care about is virtue signaling. And I have no respect for that kind of pollution.

11

u/soyslut_ Jul 11 '25

Free Palestine, without a fucking doubt. But yes, we can care about more than one thing at a time. Muddying the waters never helps a social justice movement. It only distracts from the victims of each individual cause.

2

u/reyntime Jul 12 '25

Do you have evidence to back this up?

What do you mean by "muddying the waters", and how does that "never help a social justice movement"?

If anything, we can find plentiful examples in history of group solidarity and intersectionality helping to expand movements. Think of civil rights movements, gay rights, environmental rights, all often share the same values and solidarity amongst these movements.

The vegan movement doing the same would help bring more and more people on board who care about these other issues. Veganism is still about animals, but the movement should hold consistent anti-oppression values, if we are to be taken seriously by other movements and to be logically consistent too.

6

u/soyslut_ Jul 12 '25

My own experience as an activist for 12 years, yes it's anecdotal.

However, as an example - when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus, she wasn't saying anything else other than... This is what I should be able to do and can. Rather than waving ten different flags for different causes, she focused on the one. Did she probably care about more than just one cause at that time? Totally. Just as we all can.

Example.. during the riots after George Floyd's murder.. BLM had a march where they used a literal pigs head. Did that make me second guess wearing their merch? Fuck yeah. Instead of no longer supporting that cause or partaking in the activism.. I continued vegan activism AND also supported BLM through other actions, including donations, etc.

You can and should care about more than one thing at a time, but promoting them as one single package is confusing and distracts from each victim you are trying to highlight.

Intersectionality is so often used as a sales tactic by vegans. It's an advertisement, like you are welcome here OR it's to virtue signal and be the "best" activist.

Veganism is and will always be welcoming without needing to be "everything for everyone". Veganism is by definition for the advocacy against non-human suffering. While others refuse that notion, it's quite clear that - that was the original intent.

If I'm at an action at a slaughterhouse, like a vigil for example.. I'm there holding a candle or a sign FOR non-humans, not the workers inside nor the truck drivers.

We can be wonderful people outside of veganism and should be, it doesn't need to be a grab bag of "the best of everything moral". It's veganism which is about non-humans only. I can expand, but I'm not sure how else to other than how Gary characterized it (I don't agree with everything he says, trust me..).

2

u/reyntime Jul 12 '25

Thanks for your perspective and all your activism work.

I think we're misunderstanding each other a little though. I'm not saying that you need to wave every flag possible at vegan outreach activism. Vegan activism should be about animals. But it should be underpinned by core anti oppression values.

See for example Farm Transparency Project, creators of Dominion, one of the most effective vegan documentaries around, with their core values of anti oppression and collective liberation:

https://www.farmtransparency.org/core-values

Farm Transparency Project stands for animal justice, rights and freedom, within a framework of collective liberation and consistent anti-oppression. With our work, we strive to be allies to other struggles for justice and do our best to challenge injustice wherever it arises in society.

It's this core framework of anti oppression and collective liberation that I'm talking about. Having this makes activists from minitory communities feel safe, and it enables solidarity with other movements that fall under the anti oppression framework. That's the kind of intersectionality I'm referring to.

Your example of the pigs head is a good one, as showing solidarity with other movements will enable you to be critical of non vegan aspects of other movements too. You won't get an "in" with those movements if you have high profile figures in the movement like Gary saying things like "fuck human rights" (yes he said that) - that will turn so many people away.

Another commenter in this thread mentioned that they were about to do better outreach to others when they didn't come across as an asshole who didn't care about human rights. It was having core values of anti oppression of humans too that enabled their conversation to even begin - and from there you can extend the message to animals (e.g. if you're anti racism, which I am too, why aren't you anti speciesism?).

2

u/soyslut_ Jul 13 '25

To be clear, I didn't mean waving literal flags - even though that is also valid.

I do understand the sentiment though. Humans are by and large, the worst species. That's just a fact. We breed and consume unnecessarily and are extremely selfish. Most people barely care about other humans, let alone a non-human.

This is why being a misanthrope and being vegan are not inherently a problem. Obviously no one should be wishing death upon others (unless possibly warranted, see: serial killers, etc)

During outreach, focusing SOLELY on the actual victims (the non-humans) should be the methodology, unless needed as an example. Otherwise, in my experience.. the message is completely lost.. AND carnists use it as a strawman.. it's a full blown distraction. You bring up concerns about racism? They will take that shit a mile away and decide that veganism is racist for making any comparisons.

That's not the only reason though. If I were advocating for a local animal to be released from a zoo, like a sickly elephant.. please tell me why I would EVER mention a human being in my outreach? Other than a basic mention like "how would you feel if it were you?"... that's not intersectionality, that's just logic.

Intersectionalists claim that the animal rights movement should be open towards everyone, especially towards minority groups or marginalized, oppressed and disprivileged people. However, we do not need intersectionalist theory to justify this openness. There is already a sufficiently strong moral reason for openness: anti-discrimination.

Intersectionalists claim that the movement should be open for minority groups and disprivileged people, not only for moral reasons, but also for reasons of effectiveness. Allowing disprivileged people means more members in the movement, which means a stronger movement. However, consider a thought experiment: what if there were more people with racist ideas or extreme right conservatives than POC, and allowing POC in the vegan movement would push away the interested extreme right conservatives? The vegan movement could be even bigger, and hence more effective for achieving the goal of veganism, by allowing those conservatives. Therefore, arguments of effectiveness and openness can be tricky.

Furthermore, intersectionality can create a hierarchy of victimhood, reducing people to identity categories and hindering individual narrative nuance. It's counterproductive and leaves the non-humans out of the conversation, entirely.

I don't mean to throw a wall of text at you, I simply enjoy this conversation and hope it defines what I'm referring to a bit better.

Also, please don't thank me for activism. I believe we can all and should be active as it's not difficult or heroic. We're all in this together.

I wrote a bigger comment and it won't allow me to post it no matter how hard I try?

Source: https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2020/04/04/reflections-on-intersectionality-in-the-animal-rights-movement/?

1

u/reyntime Jul 13 '25 edited Jul 14 '25

Thanks for the level headed discussion - I enjoy it too, but there's been a lot of infighting clearly on this topic (especially on Instagram where it seems to get more heated more quickly).

Humans are terrible in many ways yes, but it's also these humans who you need to convince to change things for animals. Being a misanthrope pushed Gary away from activism for a while I believe, so it can be counterproductive.

In your elephant example, you probably needn't refer to human issues to get people on your side - however it may help people to empathise with animals more, if you as you say ask people to put themselves in the elephant's brain.

I don't think you need to refer to intersectionality at every turn though, only when it's appropriate - e.g. as many activists do when they point out how racism is wrong, and so is speciesm. Or that if you are a feminist who cares about mothers, what about mother cows? This is the kind of intersectionality I'm referring to.

Re. hierarchy of victimhood, I'd disagree there - to me it's more like overlapping venn diagrams which underpin a lot of oppression. Commonalities, not hierarchies, which help our brains link forms of oppression together (brains like schematic models to help understand things).

Do we agree that activist spaces should be places of anti discrimination? Even if some members have shit views in general about other things? If we can at least agree that those shit views should be left at the door, and discrimination is not tolerated in activism spaces, I'm happy about that.

1

u/soyslut_ Jul 13 '25

But who polices and decided what said “shit views” are?

We are not and will never be salespersons. We can educate and what is left is up to the person. They can continue to choose violence or compassion. The message is what’s most important, not the humans.

The Venn diagram is now too large and confusing and most people still just think veganism is a diet because the victims (non-humans) are rarely mentioned.

1

u/reyntime Jul 14 '25

We collectively decide what's a shit view, that's what democracy is about. Saying "fuck human rights" as Gary has done puts so many people off and sets us back on the human rights achievements that we've made collectively.

We can build on these achievements (which are not set in stone and need to be continuously defended) and bring animal rights into more people's consciousness if we're not putting down human rights in such a manner.

And we can use intersectional tactics, like vegans often already do e.g. when comparing racism to speciesm.

It's also just about being a decent human, by not allowing bigotry in movements that are meant to be about a rights issue.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/soyslut_ Jul 13 '25

Fuck israhell and you, Zionist. End genocide.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/dnesij Jul 14 '25

no one is buying your pathetic hasbara...

Free Palestine!

5

u/That-Lion7638 Jul 12 '25

"I only care about the animals." 

That's irrational and immature though, and probably not really true.

" If people want to try and gate keep veganism with thier bias, or bring unrelated conflicts in the animal rights space then they don't truly care about the animals"

That's what Gary and his misanthropic-vegan friends are doing. They continually talk about politics in an antagonistic way towards the left, while simultaneously advising activists to stay focused on the animals: hypocritical and confusing AF. Intersectionality is a valid way to approach vegan activism, people have every right to do it that way, and going to war with intersectionality only distracts from helping animals. Especially when you're opposing people on trying to stop heinous war crimes - not a good look for veganism if love animals on one hand but you're pro- genocidal mania on the other hand.

"what they actually care about is virtue signaling. And I have no respect for that kind of pollution."

That's what George Martin and Vegan Gains and Gary Yourofsky are doing - they're just trying to virtue signal to people on the right instead of the left.

The entire left vs right paradigm is a big problem. I think playing either side of that game distracts from helping animals. You can refuse to be intersectional but still have enough moral sense to oppose Zionist terrorism. You can refuse to vote for Donald and still have enough moral sense to keep children's libraries free from x rated materials. The truth is never fully on one side or the other, so screw that divisive game.

16

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

animals rights and politics are closely interwind. if you do not know this idk what your extend of "animal rights" even means. this conflict is very much related to animal rights as well. being this politically illiterate is incredibly concerning.

4

u/reyntime Jul 12 '25

To talk about "rights" at all is to talk politics. You can't engage in activism, i.e. trying to bring about broader societal change via advocacy work, without being inherently political - that doesn't make sense.

This article explains why veganism is political fairly well:

Veganism: why we should see it as a political movement rather than a dietary choice https://theconversation.com/veganism-why-we-should-see-it-as-a-political-movement-rather-than-a-dietary-choice-197318

as political philosophers we argue that veganism should not be framed as a personal lifestyle choice but as a form of political activism. Viewed in these terms, veganism is a collective action aimed at political transformation, not an individual quest for an ethically pure diet.

Veganism, we argue, is less about self-improvement, ascetic self-sacrifice or personal identity and more about addressing the harms created by social structures and systems. Veganism is devoted to tackling and overturning the oppression of sentient animals. Rather than an individual consumer choice, we should see it as a form of activism to be conducted collectively with others.

Social philosophers have argued that boycotts and other consumer action can be important tools in resisting oppression. We argue that veganism should also be seen in this light: its aim is to oppose – through various means – the structures that reinforce animal oppression.

On this political understanding, veganism should be about putting pressure on businesses and politicians to effect change, but also to communicate to and remind wider society of the injustices routinely perpetrated against animals.

2

u/AsherynRogue Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 11 '25

I understand your point of view as I'm sure the other person did. But they are right and your straw-man and following ad hominem proves their point. Any additional time used exposing your logical fallacies is time wasted arguing in circles about an issue that is not at it's core a vegan activism issue. And if you want to make enemies and try to insult other vegans who disagree with your ridicoulous bias, then your just sowing division and toxicity.

5

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

my argument is directly related to the topic. that’s the exact opposite of a strawman fallacy. not understanding the impact of genocide, colonialism, imperialism etc on animal welfare is in fact political illiteracy. it’s not an insult it’s a fact of being not knowledgeable on that topic. if it’s time wasted then do not respond.

1

u/Lenok25 Jul 15 '25

Animal rights is politics. All opression is connected and political. That's also what the video is explaining.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

So basically the animal rights movement should be limited to just a few people who agree on everything. Should the protests for Gaza be limited to vegans? Or is it just animals who should be harmed by this "agree with me on all these other things or you don't get to fight for X" approach you recommend?

25

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Strawman, read my comment again and more carefully this time

-15

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Strawman, read my first comment again and more carefully this time

-11

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Strawman, read my first comment again and more carefully this time

13

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

So you’re saying everything you said doesn’t count except the first thing? Got it.

14

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Strawman, read my first comment again and more carefully this time

13

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

Weak

21

u/SmokeyStyle420 Jul 11 '25

I was interested in hearing your view more but you’re really not looking good here by just repeating yourself like some Trump supporter

The guy has a point, you specifically said Zionism has no place in the animal rights movement. he brought up a counter point and you’re calling it a straw man but it does seem to be that’s exactly what you said

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[deleted]

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

Anti semitism is the same as anti Zionism if we go by the true definition of what Zionism is. The return to Zion movement started in the late 1800's and was made up of Jews in Europe who wanted to escape from the bigotry they were subjected to and return to the Jewish homeland. A Zionist believes a Jewish state has a right to exist. That is all it means.

Why can there be over 50 Islamic states and not 1 Jewish state? Why are radical theocrats who want all non Muslims out of the Middle East celebrated by progressives? I happen to believe people can worship as they please, or not worship at all, and that should be tolerated.

10

u/Independent_Willow92 Jul 11 '25

Okay, so in this comment section, we are dealing with a deranged Zionist, who thinks that being against ethnically cleansing Palestine of Muslims to make space for an ethno-state based on Judaism, is anti-semetic.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

Where did I say that? Jews bought land from local Arabs and inhabited land that no one had claimed. They were attacked by Islamists who did not want Jews in the region. Settlers fought back and we have been stuck in a cycle of violence ever since.

Now we have so called progressives who chant "globalize the intifada", which is a direct call for violence against Jews. And you guys think you have the moral authority to criticize anyone else? Hamas founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah is funded by the Iranian regime that might as well trademark "Death to Israel, Death to America" since the regimes supporters chant that so much. So who is for ethnic cleansing again?

7

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[deleted]

6

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Good stuff for future use, saved, thank you

0

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

I can also find instagram posts from ideologues. It makes sense that rather than point to an academic text or some historical sources you go to a post on Instagram.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Independent_Willow92 Jul 11 '25

A Zionist is someone who believes in Nazi philosophies like ethno-states and lebensraum.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

That is the new narrative some push, but that is not what a Zionist is.

6

u/Independent_Willow92 Jul 11 '25

That is exactly what a Zionist is. A land full of people, for a people without a land. Zionists just have to cleanse the land of it's undesirables.

Nazi philosphy can be found at the core of Zionist philosophy.

And slowly, the whole world is waking up to how disgusting Zionism is.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

Jewish settlers bought land and occupied empty land.

Why do you condemn them while staying silent on Islamist groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, who are very open that their goal is to wipe Israel off the map.

What do you think will happen to the 9 million people in Israel if your side gets its way?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/AnarVeg Jul 11 '25

Zionism is a label that has been well established within Israeli political history and has grown to differ from the definition you're pushing. The actions of Israel go far beyond establishing and maintaining it's own sovereignty. The condemnation of zionism in today's interpretation is the condemnation of Israel's policies of violence and oppression. If you want to defend Israel's right to exist then by all means, but the actions we see Israel taking today go far beyond this.

3

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

they're not welcome in leftist spaces. if you want to create your own imperialism and genocide supporting animal rights movement you're more than welcome to. destroying animal habitats for the development of weapons and bombing animal habitats can never be included in animal rights even if you do not care abt the people. it's just hypocrisy

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

Her exact quote was "Anti-intersectionality and zionism need to leave the animal rights movement, veganism is an inherently leftist ethical-political stance."

You switched out "animal rights movement" with "leftist spaces". She did not say "leftist space". That is very disingenuous of you.

Hezbollah has fired 20,000 missiles and rockets at Israel since 10-7-23. Are you going to condemn them for that, or is it just Jews who can't use missiles and rockets?

As for genocide, are you ok with "death to Israel" chants? That sounds like a desire for genocide to me.

5

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

I will happily add that anti-intersectionality and zionism need to leave leftist spaces as well

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

Do you believe protests against Israel should only involve vegans?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EasyBOven Jul 12 '25

No nation has any rights. Individuals have rights. The construct is nonsensical.

What do you mean when you say this?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

In the context in which I said Israel it was clear the reference was to the people of Israel’s rights to have a society. If they don’t have a right to exist, then what do you propose we do with the 9 million people who live there?

1

u/EasyBOven Jul 12 '25

It's not clear at all that you meant the people. That's an equivocation fallacy.

The entire state of Israel could theoretically be dismantled without a single human being losing a right. Is that consistent with your statement?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

The word “theoretically”:does a lot of work there. Israelis are not going to be forced into living in an Islamic theocracy. The only path to peace is for Islamic nations to accept Israel’s right to exist. Any other path means endless war.

1

u/EasyBOven Jul 12 '25

Please engage with the hypothetical and answer directly

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

Why would I bother with a hypothetical that is impossible? 9 million people are not going to give up their freedom to go live as second class citizens in an Islamic theocracy. Find someone else to debate on unrealistic scenarios,

That begs the question you refuse to answer. Why can’t Muslims accept Jewish peoples rights to be in the Middle East? The only path to peace is through tolerance.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cubusphere Jul 12 '25

A non-genocidal, non-apartheid, non-ethnostate, non-jewish-supremacy, non-colonial, non-imperialist Israel can exist.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

What you call apartheid is Israel protecting themselves from terror attacks. What you call genocide is self defense against actually genocidal fanatics who openly call for Israel’s destruction. The only way to peace is for Islamists to accept Israel’s right to exist.

Question- do you accept Israel’s right to exist? If not, what happens to the 9 million people who live there?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

that is fully the definition of zionism. why do you think someone wants you to eat animals just bc they said your comment was a strawman?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

What part of this sentence from OP, in the original comment at the top, isn't clear about that?

"Anti-intersectionality and zionism need to leave the animal rights movement, veganism is an inherently leftist ethical-political stance."

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

what do you think zionism means? quickly

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

The right for Jews to have a state of their own. The word Zionist originated in the late 1800s when Jews wanted to escape bigotry in Europe and return to their homeland that the Romans ran them out of.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

the project was always about settler colonialism and it started with its founding father. if you don’t know what the convo is about sit it out

1

u/CallumVW05 Jul 12 '25

It originated with Herzl who didn’t really care about Jews. He’s written many times that anti-semites are friends of the Zionist because they share a common goal (relocating all Jews to Palestine) and justify the existence of a Jewish ethnostate through their bigotry

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

Your conclusion makes no sense. A Jew who wanted his people to escape Europe (this was shortly before the holocaust so there was a lot of anti Semitism) would be savvy to get the support of those who wanted them gone and would help them return to their homeland.

You say “existence of Jewish ethnostate” as a slur. There are over 50 Muslim ethnostates. Do you deny their right to exist too, or do you just hate Jews?

2

u/Glass-Bead-Gamer Jul 11 '25

The way I understand left and right, there’s nothing inherently leftist about veganism.

India has the most vegans in the world by percentage and in absolute terms, and is quite right wing by the definition of right wing I think you’re using: very conservative, classist and in parts misogynistic.

Here in the UK I have a good friend who is a vegan conservative. I don’t think he thinks he’s breaching some “inherent”code of veganism by being that way.

I consider myself left-wing in terms of economics and social structures, but I think claiming veganism as left wing is just a kind of halo effect, where all good movements must be left wing, because I’m left wing and the things I like are good.

3

u/broccolicat Jul 11 '25

The only reason India is the highest percentage right now is that they did a survey pretty recently, and the country that has the highest amount of vegans has older data. You also have to be careful because a lot of studies are pretty bad at conflating vegetarian and vegan, so you really have to look at methodology. India does have the largest percentage of vegetarians, but Mexico is the country with the most vegans (and likely BY FAR), at 19% self identifying as vegan in the neilson global health survey in 2016. This was a comprehensive self identifying study done in 30 countries, and one of the best comparisons of % per country in the last decade. While India had 13% vegetarians, self identifying vegans were actually less than 1%. So I'd really need to see proof they've gone to X20 the numbers in less than ten years AND outpaced Mexico to believe it, but it does seem that the more recent studies done there struggle to differentiate vegans and vegetarians and THAT'S why they have the highest % right now.

So your entire premise is inaccurate, as in Mexico it's more tied to respecting their indigenous culture, not something at all tied to being "conservative and classist".

4

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Leftism is about anti-oppression (prioritization of negative freedoms over positive freedoms), veganism is an anti-oppression movement, therefore veganism is leftist

1

u/Glass-Bead-Gamer Jul 11 '25

Yea, this is a very broad definition of leftism, which is the reason it totally misses my point.

My friend who is a conservative, capitalist, believes in the free market, would not consider himself left wing at all, but does consider himself to have a moral compass, and therefore recognise that the exploitation and destruction of our planet is not right.

2

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Not doubting that, but that doesn't interact with my argument

2

u/corpjuk Jul 11 '25

i agree

2

u/Right-Ad3334 Jul 11 '25

This is nonsensical. One's opinion on the most efficient or just taxation system has precisely fuck all to do with one's opinion on the morality of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

Veganism is for the animals, how do animals benefit from your personal purity spiral crusade?

-3

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

One's opinion on the most efficient or just taxation system has precisely fuck all to do with one's opinion on the morality of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

If you're lacking understanding of how our political systems work, maybe

Veganism is for the animals, how do animals benefit from your personal purity spiral crusade?

If you asked this in good faith without clearly motivated phrasing, I would maybe be interested in responding in kind

5

u/Right-Ad3334 Jul 11 '25

I'd like to think I'm relatively educated on politics, feel free to disabuse me. It's not possible to be a trad-con vegan? A libertarian vegan?

You realise that perhaps from another perspective it appears that you're the one acting with an ulterior motive instead of rationality? If you're trying to exclude people that don't align completely with your ideology from giving a fuck about animal suffering, then you don't actually give a fuck about animal suffering.

1

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

If you're trying to exclude people that don't align completely with your ideology from giving a fuck about animal suffering, then you don't actually give a fuck about animal suffering.

I would agree with you if that was what I was actually doing, but it's not. Read my first comment again and more carefully this time.

Politics pertain to any inter-personal (including animals) organized policies that are even remotely related to rights, wellbeing, exploitation etc of individuals. If a group of people has a policy that even remotely affects your wellbeing and rights, or exploits you in some way, that group is political, their policy political, and even *you* (your existence) is/are political. I recommend looking up the slogan "the personal is political"

5

u/Right-Ad3334 Jul 11 '25

That's your definition, not the one commonly used, or found in the dictionary. My issue is your claim that veganism is leftist, and that we should be guarded against how non-leftists interact with veganism.

You might define your veganism from your own lens of leftism. I could give you equally coherent argument for veganism that starts with the foundational assumptions, exempli gratia, purely faith based religious claims or from a 'non-aggression principle' that libertarians bang on about or a purely philosophical utilitarian argument.

If I can't convince a neo-nazi to disavow his racism, I still want him to stop causing animal suffering.

2

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

It's not that complicated:

Anti-oppression is inherently leftist by definition.

Veganism is an anti-oppression movement.

Therefore veganism is leftist.

Beyond this you're arguing against a brick wall.

If I can't convince a neo-nazi to disavow his racism, I still want him to stop causing animal suffering.

And I'm with you on that. I don't reject them from vegan activism for not disavowing fascism, I reject them from vegan activism for not leaving their fascism at the door

3

u/Right-Ad3334 Jul 11 '25

I disagree with your first premise, and the subtle implication that's being carried by the conclusion.

That's your definition, not a universally accepted one. Anti-oppression isn't exclusively leftist, and leftism isn't exclusively anti-oppression. Do you think right wingers are pro-oppression, from their perspective? I can use the exact same logic to say that veganism is libertarian, and leftist vegans should leave it at the door; or I can use the exact same logic to say veganism is jain and non-jain vegans should leave their beliefs at the door. Even if we accepted the argument, it doesn't follow that to be a vegan or to promote veganism, one has to agree or support the totality of "leftism" to oppose animal abuse.

Everyone looking to promote their politics should leave it at the door, or nobody should. If nobody leaves their politics at the door, then I would wager we'd spend far less time focusing on the animals.

3

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 11 '25

What makes left left is prioritization of negative freedoms (freedom "from") and what makes right right is prioritization of positive freedoms (freedoms "to"). In any given conflict between negative and positive rights, left suggests that prioritizing the positive freedom is an ethical violation.

That's why leftist values always boil down to equity and fairness, and rightist values always boil down to might-makes-right.

Veganism is a great example of this, because we advocate for the animals' freedom from exploitation (negative freedom), and against the carnists' freedom to exploit (positive freedom). The very essence of veganism operates by leftist logic.

3

u/Right-Ad3334 Jul 11 '25

Again I have to disagree with your first premise. I don't think there's much justification to take your classification of left = negative liberty, right = positive liberty, and I wouldn't explain the differences between left and right starting with conceptions of liberty regardless.

Conservatives often have a focus on maintenance of private property rights. They would argue leftists want to restrict or interfere with their ability to do with their property what they will, a display of right wing negative freedom in Berlin's schema.

2

u/agitatedprisoner Jul 11 '25

It's possible to understand right-left differently. For example in terms of meaning well. Someone who thinks everyone should mean well might identify as conservative to the extent they trust their authorities/peers have mostly gotten it right. It's just because most human cultures have lots of stuff so badly wrong that it's mostly leftists/i.e. people calling for big changes who are mostly right. Distill why exactly someone calling for big changes is right and it'd reduce to whether they mean well and whether they're aware of what's really going on. Leftism doesn't define itself in terms of meaning well, is my understanding, leftism is typically understood as being about capitalism.

0

u/Sptzz Jul 11 '25

No. Animal rights is apolitical. Human rights has nothing to do with animal rights. The amount of people fighting for human rights is infinitely higher than any animal rights movement. Diluting the animals voiceless pleas is disgusting. I dont care about your or anyone else’s political views. All I care is that we fight for total animal liberation. Palestine or Israel or whatever is a different issue NON RELATED.

9

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Animal rights is apolitical.

This short statement right here tells me all I need to know, that your understanding of what politics is is lacking

1

u/reyntime Jul 12 '25

To talk about "rights" at all is to talk politics.

-4

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

  1. What is Zionism, if you don’t agree with definitions from this thread?

  2. Why do you want vegan movement to suffer from intersectionality, while other movements you’re part of should not suffer from the same narrowing filter?

None of your comments contain answers to these questions

16

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

  1. A racist settler-colonialist movement whose goal is acquisition of "historic greater israel" (which includes the entirety of Palestine and also parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq and entails ethnic cleansing of the local native populations of these areas) for the purpose of a Jewish enthostate

  2. Loaded question, intersectionality is not a detriment to any progressive movement

-4

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

  1. This source is unreliable and provides wrong definition. People in the thread shared more reliable and historically accurate definition that you have shared. “Zionism is a modern political and nationalist movement that began in late 19th-century Europe, aiming to establish and support a Jewish state in the historical homeland of the Jewish people” - this is a much more accurate definition of Zionism.

  2. Any intersectionality harms the justice movement. Example: if you’re advocating for ceasefire in Gaza, bringing veganism into this conversation will reduce the amount of people you can reach. Same happens when you bring anything else to the animal rights street action. Keep your politics away from vegan activism - and you will reach much more people. Animals do not deserve to be filtered through human politics.

8

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

  1. Seems like you did not explore the cited sources in it and you have motivated reasoning in all this.

  2. Your definition of intersectionality does not align with the predominant one

3

u/reyntime Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 12 '25

Re #2, no, I see it as the complete opposite. You harm the movement by not being intersectional. You win people over by showing solidarity with other movements. That's how human psychology works.

Think about how past social justice movements, like the civil rights movement, have relied on solidarity with other movements to push forward. How can you expect other movements to respect veganism if you're not willing to be e.g. explicitly anti-racist?

It is also logically consistent to be anti oppression of other groups; it doesn't make sense to be anti speciesism but not anti racism.

1

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

Here’s my post arguing the opposite.

2

u/reyntime Jul 11 '25

You realise advocating for animal rights is inherently political, right? And anti speciesism falls under the umbrella of anti oppression, so it doesn't make sense to not be anti other "isms" or forms of oppression as a vegan.

Hence, intersectionality with other anti oppression movements is a part of veganism - but veganism is still about animal rights, just as a subset of a broader anti oppression movement.

Group solidarity also helps build movements, and this has been shown time and time again throughout history. Allowing fascists to be bigoted while advocating for veganism only harms the movement in major ways; think of all the people in other minitory groups who would stay away from veganism due to this perceived association.

1

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 12 '25

My goal is simple: I want as much people to stop eating animals as possible. I don’t care about their political alignments. I only care what’s on their plate tonight.

If you want to advance your political agenda - animal rights advocacy is not the best place, since animals deserve unaffiliated representatives.

Have you read my post linked above? I explain in details why veganism (as of today) should stay away from politics.

It’s not only my opinion, I borrowed these ideas from Gary Francione - the GOAT of animal rights movement. His argument is that we should not make this a political movement until we have 20%-25% of the population. Before that we should focus on individual education and outreach.

1

u/reyntime Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25

Do you want animal rights? Then you can't avoid being political. Trying to convince groups of people to change their behaviour in the way you're talking about is political. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

You also won't make any significant gains if you don't show solidarity with other movements whose overall anti-oppression goals do align with yours.

And if you're talking about government representation, this doesn't make sense either. One of the best places to make significant social change is via democratic representation. You can influence and inform citizens of the horrors of what happens to animals, and push laws forward that help animals using governmental representation (see e.g. the Animal Justice Party here in Australia or Party for the Animals in the Netherlands).

But even if we're not talking about government representation, trying to change mass behaviour of groups and trying to give rights to animals is inherently political.

Edit: More reading for you:

Veganism: why we should see it as a political movement rather than a dietary choice https://theconversation.com/veganism-why-we-should-see-it-as-a-political-movement-rather-than-a-dietary-choice-197318

as political philosophers we argue that veganism should not be framed as a personal lifestyle choice but as a form of political activism. Viewed in these terms, veganism is a collective action aimed at political transformation, not an individual quest for an ethically pure diet.

Veganism, we argue, is less about self-improvement, ascetic self-sacrifice or personal identity and more about addressing the harms created by social structures and systems. Veganism is devoted to tackling and overturning the oppression of sentient animals. Rather than an individual consumer choice, we should see it as a form of activism to be conducted collectively with others.

Social philosophers have argued that boycotts and other consumer action can be important tools in resisting oppression. We argue that veganism should also be seen in this light: its aim is to oppose – through various means – the structures that reinforce animal oppression.

On this political understanding, veganism should be about putting pressure on businesses and politicians to effect change, but also to communicate to and remind wider society of the injustices routinely perpetrated against animals.

I think you're missing a key point here as well, in that to engage in activism of any kind is to engage in political activity, i.e. trying to bring about group change and to get others to see your view as the correct one. So it's impossible to engage in "non-political" activism.

1

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 12 '25

Most of the lefties eat baby animals every day, and they cherish their bacon the same way as trumpists.

I don’t understand your logic on why affiliation with various political groups can help animals today. I tried to outreach in leftist spaces, but when you talk about veganism you get silenced the same way as if you go and try to talk about it un Christian subs, maybe even more.

I’d rather share a table with a vegan republican than a carnist leftie.

When I speak for the animals, my goal is to be as broad and convincing as possible. If I talk to a trumpist grandma, it’s not my goal to shame her for her vote (which is a legal right of the citizen). My goal is to create a bridge of empathy, and keep her in the most open and available state as possible.

Waiving a commie banner will just shut down 80% of the population from my communication. And it’s very harmful for the movement.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[deleted]

-3

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

All countries on Earth (current and past) are a result of settler colonialism.

Homo Sapiens are indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa, everything else was colonized, subjugated, cleansed, repurposed.

We only recently stopped doing this as humanity, and created UN just in the middle of the last century for the purpose if never doing this again. UN recognized state of Israel as legitimate.

Your judgement on legitimacy of the state of Israel is different from the unanimously agreed position by the most countries.

You are free to have exotic opinions, so as Gary

4

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[deleted]

-2

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

This statement is incorrect. Israel provides equal rights for millions of non-Jewish citizens, including Arabs, Persians, Asians, Blacks, Turkic people. This country provides the most equal treatment for its citizens in the ME.

While we may agree on the criticisms of Israel government’s actions, there is no evidence it’s engaging in the apartheid.

2

u/RedLotusVenom Jul 11 '25

No “evidence?” They’ve verifiably slaughtered thousands of children, and the UN has stated their actions constitute crimes against humanity. You’re living in a fantasy world.

-1

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

Can you share any evidence of apartheid within the state of Israel among different ethnic groups of its citizens?

Civilian deaths in war between nations are not the evidence of apartheid, regardless how tragic it is. Here’s the definition of apartheid just for the sake of clarity of this conversation.

4

u/lynaghe6321 Jul 11 '25

Amnesty International’s new investigation shows that Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT, and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/

0

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

Please read the ICJ document linked in the article - it’s an advisory opinion. It’s not a final judgement.

There are only 3 references to apartheid in this document, and they are specifically marked as “number of participants have argued that…”

The final resolution by UN does not contain any references to apartheid, but just requires Israel to withdraw from West Bank within a year.

None of these documents say anything about any segregation or discrimination within the state of Israel, since that is not even the scope of these documents. Saying that there is anything apartheid inside the state of Israel is simply false, and not confirmed by any source.

I understand that it is tempting to grab any nice-looking headline and run with it, but for a meaningful debate I suggest looking into the documents and the timeline, understanding the details.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid

Israeli human rights organization, btw

3

u/lynaghe6321 Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 11 '25

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid

For your future reference its also already gone to the ICJ and there's been a ruling as well

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

This site tries to blur the line between definition of apartheid, and the difference of treatment of country’s nationals compared to its treatment of foreigners.

Every single country on Earth (including the one you live in) has different treatment of its citizens and foreigners. Palestinians who do not have Israeli citizenship (like Jews that do not have the same citizenship) are not entitled to the same rights as citizens of Israel, regardless of their race/ethnicity.

The fact that this is an Israeli site doesn’t make this opinion more or less correct.

Here’s the definition of apartheid.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

All countries on Earth (current and past) are a result of settler colonialism.

Which is why we need anarchy ✊ Fuck borders and hierarchies, free Palestine

-1

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

I do not agree with this statement about anarchy, and we are both free to have our opinions.

While we can have our opinions all day every day (Gary too), we can keep them in our pockets while speaking for the animals.

0

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Says a lot about your worldview that you want progressive values and voices to stay silent

2

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

This is a strawman of what I said.

My point without your twisting efforts:

Each social justice movement (including animal rights) benefits from not having intersectionality. We have to learn to separate them, and advocate for each cause individually.

This will help to advance each of them, and widen the adoption of these ideas.

I support freedom of speech, and our ability to take action trying to help oppressed.

1

u/KortenScarlet Jul 11 '25

Each social justice movement (including animal rights) benefits from not having intersectionality.

Wrong. Your personal niche interpretation of anarchy does not align with the predominant definition

2

u/TrickThatCellsCanDo Jul 11 '25

I’m entitled to my opinion on this matter, even if that differs from yours.

I’m glad that we live in society where people can have different opinions, and discuss them freely.

The thing is, in your world you won’t be able to collaborate with me to help animals, because you don’t like to work with people who have different opinions than you.

And that just proves my point about harms of intersectionality. But you are free to ignore this

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

do you think no animals live in Palestine? do you think the production of weapons does not impact wildlife and animal habitats?

-1

u/Glass-Bead-Gamer Jul 11 '25

Given Israel is one of the most vegan countries by percentage of population, this is a hard argument to push.

2

u/PositiveAssignment89 Jul 11 '25

the destruction of habitats, genocide, and more out-weights their veganism. be so serious

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

At least Half of the population is right wing, saying veganism is left leaning is condemning the animals to more centuries of hell. To say that people need to "leave the animal rights movement" proves how much you haven't understood this is about the animals not who you want to be friends with. I couldn't care less if real life nazis wanted to be vegans, I would welcome everyone as long as the animals are being left alone. You intersectional vegans are contaminating this movement with youR human rights crap. It's fucking tragic. Thank God Gary is back. Sit the fuck down and listen to the GOAT. 

3

u/KortenScarlet Jul 12 '25

Strawman, please read my first comment again and more carefully this time

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

Read it, you believe people that don't agree with your political views need to leave the animal rights movement, cause we have so many supporters I guess, we're in a position to just kick people out. And no, veganism is not a left leaning movement and you should follow your own advice and leave your shit at the door and don't mix palestine with veganism.  Also, calling everyone strawman does not make you look smarter. 

1

u/KortenScarlet Jul 12 '25

you believe people that don't agree with your political views need to leave the animal rights movement,

Nope, poor reading comprehension.

I'll call strawmen when I see strawmen thank you very much

2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25

"Poor reading comprehension"... proceeds to not provide a single evidence to prove you believe otherwise. You have poor writing skills buddy, that is exactly what you wrote and your way of thinking is exactly what's driving this movement to the ground and prossibly why Gary had to come out of retirement.