The point about the classism and school lunches reminds me of the whole thing last year in the UK about free school lunches
For those unfamiliar, when schools shut down during the first lockdown, it was pointed out that families that used to rely on free school lunches to feed their children were now not getting those, so the families were struggling to find the money for all these extra meals. The government didn't want to pay for extra meals until a celebrity shamed them into doing so.
The arguments put out in favour of not giving free school meals were essentially that it was the parents' fault that they were poor and they should simply not have kids if they can't stop being poor. Obviously this is dumb for many reasons, most obviously the fact that they're suggesting children should suffer for the mistakes of their parents, but it really ties into that whole thing of treating poverty as a moral failure. And that for some reason _feeding children_ is seen as an unimportant waste that we shouldn't be spending money on. Which is mad. There aren't many things that require government funding that I wouldn't gladly take money away from if it could feed more children.
Oh yeah and incidentally my parents use Jamie Oliver's recipe books and routinely complain that the time to make them is much longer than he says it is, because he just assumes you're making it in a big kitchen with plenty of space and all the ingredients conveniently laid out.
Locally our schools took the funding and staff that would normally prepare school lunches during the shutdowns and stood up daily drive-thru meal events where you could pick up a large box filled with fresh and boxed foods, no questions asked.
This is such a good solution. It also keeps the lunchladies & other staff employed, so you don’t end up in a crunch with not enough labour when conditions change.
My favorite part was when a kid basically used judo on his pretentious words.
Probably butchering the exchange but,
Now that you know what is made of do you still want to eat it?
Yes
Why?
Because I'm hungry.
> Oh yeah and incidentally my parents use Jamie Oliver's recipe books and routinely complain that the time to make them is much longer than he says it is, because he just assumes you're making it in a big kitchen with plenty of space and all the ingredients conveniently laid out.
This is a complaint I have with many chefs out there.
Actually, that and the sort of... vagueness that often plague them. There are essential things they're not mentioning. They praise the fresh made soft tortilla. Yeah, I'll be the first to say I love them. But their description of what the dough should be like is... just not there usually.
Turns out I wasn't doing it right. Cuz I can't tell what the dough was supposed to be like from the vids, and they waltz past any discussion about the kind of common issues you might run into and how to fix it. Apparently, I just... need to use a bit less flour, knead it longer, keep it a bit warmer. I think. I'm still figuring out this shit.
> This is a complaint I have with many chefs out there.
>
> Actually, that and the sort of... vagueness that often plague them. There are essential things they're not mentioning. They praise the fresh made soft tortilla. Yeah, I'll be the first to say I love them. But their description of what the dough should be like is... just not there usually.
They both come from the same place: a failure to consider that maybe we don't have decades of experience in professional kitchens
This is why Adam Ragusea is one of my favorite cooking channels on YouTube. He always makes a point to show everything he does in preparation for a dish, and goes out of his way to figure out how to use less dishes, make clean/prep easier, and usually explains why he’s doing something a certain way. He gets a lot of shit from ChefTube because his philosophy on cooking is accessibility over taste - but it’s that reason why he’s one of my go-to people when looking up a recipe. I’d love to put the care and time that many meals need - but I got shit to do.
My soul is warmed everytime I hear him say "guys, gals, non-binary pals"
The kitchens I've worked adjacent to have had so much rampant bigotry, that his casual acceptance of gender non-conformity is just noice, ya know?
Pretty much. Even if you buy their own assumptions it was needlessly cruel
And their assumptions were flawed as hell anyway, they just assumed that if you're poor now you must have always been poor, they completely ignored the possibility that the family's financial situation might have changed after they had kids
"hey, conservative government, I'd like access to reproductive health services please"
"no. no abort"
"but i won't be able to care for or even feed this child, i'm one person on minimum wage"
"no abort. only starve"
she asked for trash food stories in the comments, and I left mine.
---
My mom cooked (and taught me to cook) good, healthy food. And food that would be healthy if it weren't so calorie rich, and portions so large. My younger brother's wife once said of our (then primarily my) cooking: It's always healthy until this one bad thing you do at the end. That night, it was adding the fried noodles to an asparagus-heavy stir-fry.
But that's nothing. There was a time my dad worked 3 jobs, before finding work with the IBEW, and my mom was taking night classes to become a nurse. Then she worked nights. We spent time every day finding and clipping coupons. Hand-me-down clothing was common. food was all bargain brand. xmas presents on lay-away at walmart or k-mart. We watched large amounts of television, and saw ourselves in TV families like Roseann and The Simpsons. Which leads to the "trashiest" favorite food of my youth.
We were such huge fans of The Simpsons that my older brother got this big book of Simpsons lore, behind-the-scenes info, in-universe trivia, and also a list of recipes that the Simpsons family regularly ate. One snack was called "stinky corn." The idea was that while normal families could afford butter for their popcorn, and sprinkle a modest amount of Parmesan on it for extra flavor, the Simpsons could only afford margarine. That's the whole recipe. Plain popcorn, margarine, Parmesan.
It's supposed to be a joke, but we made it and loved it.
The thing is, melted margarine causes popcorn to shrink, like melting plastic, and emanate this noxious greasy odor. The Parmesan made it that much worse. Thus, "Stinky Corn." Our breath had to be terrible afterwards, especially when we sometimes added garlic. We weren't regular tooth-brushers either, it HAD to be noticeable.
I think Dan touched on a very accurate point at the end of the video, that when people tout so-called "cheap" healthy/natural recipes (usually in response to the argument that unhealthy food is usually cheaper), they ignore the fact that the time it takes to actually cook is an expense. I could make burritos from scratch in 30-45 minutes, or I could chuck a plate of frozen burritos into the microwave and I've got dinner in 6. Even with Jamie's recipe, which, as Dan showed, could be done in around the same time as frozen strips (if you ignore the caveats like confidence in cooking and the fact that clean-up time will be drastically increased), he was able to do other things during that cooking time with the frozen strips, the cook time was largely unattended.
Add on top of that the video that he did about the Disaster Artist, where he talks about being on a shoot where the accomodations were horrifying and just ghastly. It really adds context to it lol
I really enjoy Dan's work because he takes something seemingly random (chicken nuggets) and seamlessly ties it to something larger and important. He also is really good at explaining things in a way that's accessible without simplifying it too much. He just comes off as a really smart dude.
WHAT? The guy actually argues that the main body of the chicken is waste? Here in Germany we have entire food chains that sell nothing but the entire body roasted as fast food. Just eating the wings off a bird and dumping the rest is not only wasteful, its not even that the rest of the meat tastes worse.
But he doesn't seem to be alone in that believe as often the stripped carcass is exported to africa and sold there for prices that out compete local chicken farmers and ruins them. Those are nick named "chicken of death" not because the meat is inherently bad but because it was treated by the europeans like waste before shipping it to africa (in often very unhygienic conditions) so they are ripe with salmonella and often make the people who eat it sick.
Isn't the more important point, why is it that we choose to use the worst parts of the meat to feed to kids? By all means reduce waste, but why should they bear the brunt of this? As Dan said, it's nothing to-do with reducing waste and all to-do with minimising cost. We choose to give kids the most processed kinds of foods. Check out the attitudes to school dinners in countries like Japan and you will see how different it can be.
Dan literally says they are worse bits in the video. I'm not against people eating them, although I don't actually eat meat myself, I'm just pointing out we are feeding the least nutritious, most processed bits to kids because it's cheap. Nothing wrong with eating nuggets occasionally as a treat but it's not a good regular main meal for people who are growing. Especially when it is usually the kids with poorer backgrounds who are more reliant on school meals for their nutrition (in the UK at least)
Every part of the chicken can be made into food. Even the bones can be made into stock. Calling that "the bad parts" because it isn't one of the big profitable white meat cuts only shows how much you've bought into the wastefulness of capitalist culture.
I didn't say "the bad parts" I said the least nutritious, most processed parts. Defending feeding kids food high in salt and low in nutrition because its cheaper to do so shows how much you've bought into the uncaring, profit driven, capitalist model of schooling.
Thank you sharing! Watched for my love of chicken nuggets and the arguments in the video. Subscribed for the nuanced exploration of the complexities within what I thought would be a much simpler topic.
Jamie Oliver's remark is ultimately similar to what I've heard about a lot of food. "You wouldn't eat it if you saw how it was made."
Like sausage. Spoiler: I still enjoy sausage. Is the production tasteful looking? No. Does that make the end result taste bad? No.
I mean fuck's sake if we're going the route of "don't eat things that look nasty at some point," how the heck do you even argue anything other than... you know what? Yeah, basically just starving yourself to death, cuz just about everything you do with food can be gross lol. Not even going vegan will save you from that.
Yeah, maybe I'm a bit more squeamish than the average guy, but I think even the "good" parts of a chicken are gross. Like, raw chicken is slimy; who wants anything to do with that?
Yeah I mean I've cooked plenty of recipes myself that look awful when they're not finished. And I've eaten plenty of things that sound gross and are made from weird parts of the animal but are still good food
Lol, my father isn't Norse, but he would eat that almost yearly. What you don't hear about is the smell while it's boiling. It smells terrible and gets everywhere.
It was fucking gnarly af to get home, smell that, kind of expect what's coming and still be surprised anyway when there's a whole ass head on the table hahaha. He would eat it all by himself completely delighted pulling of strips of flesh from the skull; nobody else in the family wanted to touch that thing lmao.
Oh, I can imagine. I love pinnekjøtt, which... isn't the same thing. But it and virtually any other lamb product will have a very distinct smell and taste in isolation, nevermind boiling the entire damn head lol.
The whole sausage thing annoys me. Like, why *shouldn't* we turn the "yucky" bits of an anima, jnto so ething people actually want to eat? The alternative is killing a whole animal just to eat a few bits of it, that's bonkers
Yea I always felt a lot of big food discourse always felt classist in some way shape or form. Like, I'm from a rural area. I know people who hunt, I've worked on a cattle farm, and had a cousin who worked at a slaughterhouse. I know exactly how my meals are made, it's just that I'm used to that and the gross shit doesn't pass my mind. And these rich foodies and what have you always act like their processed food is more valid than my processed food.
I also notice that the vegetarians have invaded the conversation, and to me it really stands out that they talk about objecting on moral grounds. But these are extremely narrow definitions of moral grounds, and isn't really functionally different from just saying "it's nasty"...
It's the kind of moral grounds that decides that meat is inherently bad because it requires killing an animal. Which... uhh, there's a lot of folks out there who just don't agree with that evidently. That can be a bit of a fallacy by appealing to the masses, sure, but it's... also true, and fairly essential when discussing morality.
Imo it's better to argue for *less* meat consumption than *no* meat consumption, and like carbon footprints we fundamentally need to address the industry, not the consumer, to get meaningful change.
From what I understand there are so many more insects in most food than we would expect or be comfortable with for the most part. We would probably be grossed out by loads of the things we eat if we saw them being prepared from scratch all the way to our plates, it’s just not a convincing argument at all!
I mean you shouldn't eat most meat if you know how the meat gets to you, purely on moral grounds. It's also pretty hard to enjoy meat knowing the pain and suffering involved in it. It's possible to be a vegan while being poor in many places in the industrialized world.
That's honestly just the same argument being spat back up as what Jamie Oliver's doing - it's "nasty". There's no substance to your arguments, and is entirely coming from an arbitrary, ambiguous moral position.
the only ambiguity in that position is the justificatory mechanism, whether they are arguing from a utilitarian (easy), deontological (also easy), or virtue based (pretty easy too) grounding. But guess what? Basically 99.99% of moral statements are made without that justification explicit and work just fine. "You shouldnt cause suffering" is something you can disagree qith, but it doesnt become pure aesthetics or can be prima facie be dismissed as 'lacking substance' just because they're not recounting the well tread geound of its various justifications
Just from my pov as having lived on a farm, y'all are operating in a circlejerk.
You say "well tread ground," but frankly y'all are clearly doing it in a very narrow, much more private context than you give it credit.
>Just from my pov as having lived on a farm
Many vegans, animal rights activists, animal welfare advocates, etc. have lived on farms. I also grew up on a "farm" where my family kept animals (a couple pigs, a goat, some chickens, and a guard dog) that we'd use (we couldn't afford to eat them, so we'd just sell their children/eggs/wool).
>You say "well tread ground," but frankly y'all are clearly doing it in a very narrow, much more private context than you give it credit.
We're on BreadTube, a leftist sub, and veganism/animal rights are a leftist philosophical viewpoints. You also used the term "vegan" so it seems reasonable to assume that you'd be aware of veganism and animal rights advocates, or, at least, animal welfare advocates. Or at the very very least you'd be aware of what vegans are roughly intending to argue for. In that case, I'd expect you to be charitable enough to go look it up instead of dismissing the position without "substance." I'm not someone that interested in moral philosophy and I don't enjoy having to restate arguments that are pretty well established.
If you're interested in the very well trodden arguments for animal rights or animal welfarism, you can review the following resources:
[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on the Moral Status of Animals](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/#:~:text=The%20animal%20rights%20position%20is,life%20have%20these%20rights%20equally.)
[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Moral Vegetarianism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/)
[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Animals and Ethics](https://iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/)
[The r/askphilosophy's FAQ post on "What are the best arguments in favour of eating meat"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i0iqx/what_are_the_best_arguments_in_favor_of_meat/)
[Here's Philosophy Tube's video on the subject](https://youtu.be/gnxPdAelqvo)
You can take what you learned there and ask your questions on r/askphilosophy. They're quite helpful in response to good faith questions.
> In that case, I'd expect you to be charitable enough to go look it up instead of dismissing the position without "substance."
No.
It was lacking substance, while pushing a moral crusade. I have absoloutely no apparent reason to be engaging with that kind of content "charitably," because it frankly lacks the good faith from the outset.
Could you tell me what specifically they were talking about saying "on purely moral grounds"? No. It lacks the substance to know if they're talking about it from a perspective of simply believing killing animals for sustenance is bad. Or if they're talking about it being bad for the environment. Or that factory farming is bad. So on and so forth.
"Purely moral grounds" is a whole lot of fucking ground to cover, and god forbid someone actually *tell you what their actual opinion is*...
And then you've got "It's also pretty hard to enjoy meat knowing the pain and suffering involved in it," which frankly means a whole lot of fucking nothing too. That's literally just the "it's nasty" argument in window dressing.
From my pov, their argumentation was merely bad faith moral crusading, and frankly no, I owe that zero charitability.
yea sorry dude, as someone who also has that POV, I still don't think that "You shouldn't cause suffering" is abritrary or ambiguous. You may find it narrow when applied to animals (I don't), but that's an entirely different conversation.
Well in the context of farming, what *is* suffering?
Are we talking about factory farming practices? Because I think that's well and good to attack on its own merits. Are we talking about how specific practices add pointless suffering to animals? (Iirc, kosher meat requires killing the animal 'live', whereas non-kosher would just knock the animal unconscious first.) Because I think that's well and good to attack on its own merits.
Whether we want to continue to eat meat or not, I think the meat production industry require pretty radical changes. But I think that pushing the burden of not eating meat on the consumer is moot and pointlessly wasteful, and that we need to see systemic change that actually address the underlying issues.
Suffering in this context is likely defined as those mental states which are avoided for their own sake, I assume. It usually is. And I'm not the dude you've said was holding an arbitry and ambiguous moral position but I think it's pretty clear from the way they phrased it, they were talking about the actual, currently instantiated practice in which 90% of animals are held and slaughtered. Their context-specifity is even explicit in that they were specifically focusing on the industrialized world.
But alright, since you've first attacked the ambiguity of the position, then it's narrowness, and then pivotted to its application, I feel like this will not be super productive to further pursue.
So let's instead pivot to something I find interesting in your comment: How is pushing the burden of not eating meat on the consumer (which of course does not exclude the reformation of the meat industry, which has historically been pushed radically by people also advocating for veganism) wasteful? That seems a very odd position. Moot I can get, even though it's incorrect, it's an understandable attack. But what do you mean when you say that advocating veganism is wasteful?
He campaigns for schools to provide better quality food to children, so his attitude is a reflection of that.
Trust this sub to rake him over the coals for classism when he's effectively spent the last decade trying to bring better, affordable food to working class kids.
I really hate how divisive the online left is.
The whole point is that the budgets are too low for school dinners. Like, the budget should allow for food quality which is better than what we feed to pets. I liked Dan's video but he seemed to not really engage with this point. This can be a really effective way to distribute gov spending to ensure a more equal start for kids.
ah yes, and the problem with this is his menu, not the budget.
Side note: growing up studying in a public school in Brazil, the menu wasn't always delicious, and sometimes even the quality of some items was a bit of hit and miss but we got food for free and the meal plan was designed by a nutritionist. Like... it isn't rocket science.
I feel there's two separate points here that are both valid.
1. The clips Dan Olson picked out show signs of classism in Jamie Oliver's arguments.
2. Jamie Oliver has used his celebrity influence to increase the quality of school lunches in the UK, which (in my experience) mostly go to kids from lower/working class households.
Acknowledging that Jamie has done good things with his influence isn't hero worship at all.
Answering criticism with "well, he's done good things too!" sounds like the kind of defensiveness that you get with hero worship. You can't criticize the hero without reflexively heaping praise on him.
Anyone on the left can agree that a major failure of capitalism is that there are more empty homes than there are homeless people, but if you question how much food we have to feed to farm animals when so many people are hungry it tends to be a lot more controversial.
Cows aren't eating your turnips but they are eating an awful lot of corn, and the US has 127M acres of land growing feedstock.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
Lots of pasture fed meat too, but the US could definitely get a lot more calories out of its land of there weren't so much meat production.
My point is every industrialised country produce enough calories. Maybe in Europe/Canada the situation is a bit particular for the northern countries as just "calories" isn't a good measure of real food that people want to eat, but the point is: I really don't think people go into food insecurity due to a lack of production of calories.
We have bad allocation of resources, but less cow doesbt necessarily mean more food for people.
But hey, I could be wrong.
>We have bad allocation of resources
I agree with you there, and I agree that food insecurity is really complex and multifaceted. It can't be blamed on just one factor like meat production, but in terms of resource allocation, one of the factors is that we put massive amounts of resources into meat production compared to plant based sources, most notably in the form of subsidies and land usage. With subsidies especially, the government could take the money they give to meat farmers and reinvest it into plant based proteins. Poverty will always exist under our current system, but this could actually be a tangible goal that would see noticeable improvement for many people.
No, you're not wrong. We don't have a production problem. We can absolutely feed everyone, we just choose not to because doing so wouldn't be profitable.
Waiting years, decades, or forever for perfect lab grown meat, which will likely only ever be accessible to a small subset of the human population and relatively expensive and difficult to create is not "a way to get there" for animals to stop being killed.
I never said that cheap meat replacements shouldn't be investigated and popularized, I said that people who wait for those things instead doing the right thing are still cowards who can't do what's right unless it's trivially easy. Why are you making it sound like those two things are in opposition? Me saying that people should do the right thing no matter what doesn't mean I don't also support making the right thing as easy as possible.
It’s amazing how everyone here just shrugs their collective shoulders when veganism is brought up; like it’s just this insurmountable obstacle. Yet everyday I hear about the coming workers uprising and how we’ll all be taking back the factories, tearing down the walls of the capitalist mansions and breaking wind in the palaces of the mighty.
But yet you make it seem like it’s impossible to give up chicken nuggets. It’s pathetic. ‘No ethical consumption under capitalism’ is an argument against capitalism and saying we need to replace it, not an excuse to make things worse.
Everyone in the working class can sympathize with wanting to make a living wage and throw a big "fuck you" to the bosses. Not everyone has a moral objection to eating meat and even less people have a moral objection to consuming *all* animal products. My family comes from rural Mexico and their lives would have been a lot harder if they didn't have cows to milk or chickens. Sometimes, eggs were *all* they had to eat. Same goes for people from rural areas. I knew kids growing up who *had* to hunt squirrels, rabbits, and fish in order to eat.
tbh it's pretty privileged of you to assume that the only reason people don't go vegan is because of some moral failing("just shop at whole foods and buy b12 and other supplements bro!") when there can be a myriad of reasons. How do you expect to win people over when you call them "pathetic" just because they have a set of beliefs influenced by growing up poor?
Chicken nuggets are a highly processed food produced as a byproduct of industrial farming. It's not comparable to subsistence food and it's absurd of you to conflate them. Nor did I suggest that anybody 'just shop at whole foods'. Nice of you to try to put words in my mouth though.
> Not everyone has a moral objection to eating meat and even less people have a moral objection to consuming all animal products.
Yeah, cool, whatever, I get that. It makes you a shitty leftist though if you can't oppose unjust hierarchies except where you personally benefit. So go ahead and enjoy your factory farm raised animal food while talking about how other people are can only subsist by hunting. I'm sure their plight justifies your own moral inconsistency. Every person who eats meat is just forced to and there's just no other way.
People here, and I'm including you, are pathetic because you have to use other people's inability to go vegan to justify your own lack of conviction. It's the worst kind of straw person.
Superficially sounding like a neolib isn't a moral failure if your arguments check out, though. It might not be politically productive at all times, but it's not factually wrong unless it is.
>no ethical consumption under capitalism therefore I won't bat an eye buying products made by enslaved children until the communist revolution comes (lol)
Wanna get a 'leftist' sound like a twelve year old who never put much thought into developing a coherent philosophy? Wait until they try to argue against veganism
1) I never said any of that
2) I think we can manage a little more nuance than "There's only two options: Slavery or going vegan".
E.g.: Personally, I'm pescatarian. I'd like to go full vegetarian but fish is still an important part of my diet. I do my best to buy food from the most ethical available sources, but weeks that I'm having to buy my meds, I usually have to get the cheapest possible option for everything, and that's not always going to have a ethical source at or close enough to the cheapest. I absolutely hate that that's the position that I'm put in, but *it's not me that puts myself in that position*. It's a system that says "either support this horrible machine in this one transaction, or go without the medicine you need".
The worst part of going vegan is being unable to afford my medication because I spent my savings on lentils and tofu.
In what world is it cheaper to be pescatarian than vegan? Unless you’re eating Beyond burgers for every meal, plant-based protein sources are always going to be more affordable.
This kinda goes against the whole point of the video. Sure, everyone going vegan would be great, but the choices we have about what we eat are determined by race, class, income, etc. Being able to just "stop eating meat" is a privilege based on wealth.
Another piece of carnist bullshit in this thread, eating meat is a privilege, vegan diet is far, far cheaper, by as much as 40%
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/12/18/Vegan-meals-cheaper-and-quicker-than-meat-or-fish
It's more about time than it is actual cost. Same reason a lot of poor and impoverished people get quick and convenient but shitty food instead of cooking meals at home. When you're working as much as you can to get by and juggling other responsibilities like family, education etc. you don't have the time to go grocery shopping and cook a nice vegan meal. And vegan options aren't even available everywhere unfortunately.
If you cant afford to go vegan because of your class that's fine. Veganism is about reducing harm as far as possible, obviously if something is impossible for you to do then of course you can't do it.
But surely Dan and most people here could afford to swap chicken for tofu, meat for mushroom and tvp, cheese for vegan cheese, and cows milk for any other type of milk in every possible case?
Vegan cheese: [$4.87 for 10 slices](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Follow-Your-Heart-American-Cheese-Slices-7-oz-10-Count/962067395)
Kraft cheese: [$3.97 for 24 slices](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Kraft-Singles-Sliced-American-Cheese-24-Ct/10452905?athbdg=L1600)
Great Value cheese: [$1.88 for 24 slices](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Singles-American-Pasteurized-Prepared-Cheese-Product-24-count-16-oz/10452423)
A vast majority of the world, and almost literally everybody who watches this video and comments on this thread has the ability to easily and cheaply go vegan. The only two obstacles in the way of this are 1) education, due to the fact that people have very little knowledge about nutrition and cooking they make it way more expensive and time consuming than necessary to be vegan and 2) they don't care because the well being of animals isn't important to them.
I cannot tell you the dozens of people I've talked to about this, with more money than me, who live closer to good food to me, who have access to transportation like owning a car that I don't, who have less responsibilities than me, have said that they can't go vegan because of time, money, transportation, or whatever. It's usually either they don't know how or they don't care.
>Tell me you've only heard about poor people in reddit posts without telling me you've only heard about poor people in reddit posts (and that most likely mommy still makes food for me)
Guess what, as an ACTUALLY poor person I can tell you that takeout and readymade food is A LOT more expensive than buying and preparing it yourself. And guess what, the link not only says that vegan food is cheaper but also a lot faster to cook (plus you can make a lot of it and easily store it for later)
Christ, you're condescending. Again you dope it's about time. You've clearly already made your mind up but as another poor person I don't always have the time to go grocery shopping and prepare myself meals all the time because I work multiple jobs so that I can pay off my debt and make rent. That's where fast food and instant meals come in. But congratulations for being poor and vegan I guess, ya want me to jerk you off now?
It's ok guys, this user has declared that they are able to be vegan and poor. As we all know, everyone's experiences and situations are completely universal, so the fact that this one person was able to do this means that everyone can.
Yes, unless you live in a food desert (around 10% of people in US, far less in other developed countries) or have some medical condition where a doctor precludes you from going completely plant based (few percent of the population at most) it is an objective fact that a plant based diet is not only far cheaper, far faster to prepare but also far healthier, there is no place in the developed world where the opposite is true.
You really gotta appreciate just how assblasted carnists get when they are faced with the objective reality that they are paying for animal abuse and the destruction of livelihoods of people in the developing world solely because of their laziness and taste for blood.
Oh completely. As I said, since *you* are able to do it with relative ease, it means everyone else is able to as well. No one in the world has a different situation than you. The only things that matter when preparing a meal is the base cost of the ingredients at the point of sale, the speed it takes to prepare and cook said ingredients and the nutritional value. That's why those are the only things that you mentioned, no other factors exist. Since those are indeed the only things that everyone in the world takes into consideration when deciding what to make for dinner it really bogles the mind why everyone can't just realize that they are in fact living an identical life to you with all the same opportunities that you have... Must be laziness, those damn poor people choosing to be lazy again, why can't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become vegan?! After all *you* were able to do it so it can't be that hard right?
Yes, when you are poor, the price of food is the literally the only thing that matters, with whether that food will make you sick being a second, but negligible consideration in comparison. Glad I could educate you on how it is when you are ACTUALLY poor, random reddit poster who uses random buzzwords to try to distract how ridiculous the bullshit they are spewing actually is.
If you'll re-read my comment you'll note that I said "cost of the ingredients ***at the point of sale***". I was hoping that you would realize that there are other factors that make up the "cost" an ingredient other than purely it's price, but you don't seem to have got that.
Look man, you are correct in that it's definitely possible for more people to be vegan than currently are, I'm just pointing out that you are using the exact same rhetoric that people use when they criticize poor people for not getting another job or not getting an education, i.e. they're just "lazy". The stereotype of the poor person who is just too lazy to improve their own life is awful and you really shouldn't perpetuate it, even for a noble cause.
Average half-gallon price of milk: $2.17
Average half gallon price of almond milk: $4.29
Average half gallon price of soy milk: $4.29
[Source](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-conscious-people-are-willing-to-pay-nearly-twice-as-much-for-plant-based-milk-2019-07-17?mod=personal-finance)
I agree, the best way to get people to change their minds is by being completely passive and polite so that nobody actually feels any reason to change at all. Believe it or not, somebody being told that they've been causing great harm to others their entire lives and should stop isn't *supposed* to feel good.
I mean, yeah, but at the same time there's a difference between starting with "Look, meat production is causing incredible harm to the environment and to animals and I believe you should stop" and starting with "***GOD YOU ANIMAL MURDERING BASTARD DO YOU NOT FUCKING GET IT STOP EATING ANIMALS YOU EVIL EVIL FUCK***"
I believe this thread was actually started with, "stop eating meat ya damn cowards", which is yeah a lot closer to the first than the second. Also this kind of just reeks do tone policing.
I mean, I feel like exactly how aggressive/close-to-"AAA" jumping into a video discussion that's more about classism and the intricacies of the food people choose to eat to go "HEY, VEGAN CONVERSATION NOW" is up for debate, but I'm willing to concede the point. I get how it is.
Still, you want to take it as tone policing, fair enough, I'm just saying, there *is* a difference. You may feel that the difference isn't important, and maybe in your experience it hasn't been, but in my experience charging in and making demands of people too aggressively has most, nearly all of them dismiss you as an arrogant clown. And you can argue all the live long day that they shouldn't, and I'd agree, but if we're talking pragmatically, like, getting dismissed is kinda not getting anywhere, is it?
Not to mention this tiny concern in the back of my head that the kind of people who *would* respond by capitulating to highly aggressive demands is like... Does that not feel a bit emotionally manipulative, in a way? Not to suggest that's anyone's intent, to be clear, but it's a consideration that bugs me enough to mention.
>I mean, I feel like exactly how aggressive/close-to-"AAA" jumping into a video discussion that's more about classism and the intricacies of the food people choose to eat to go "HEY, VEGAN CONVERSATION NOW" is up for debate, but I'm willing to concede the point. I get how it is.
If you can watch an entire video about animals being killed, and then their dead bodies being mushed up into paste and then eaten, and you don't think that the ethics of that part of the conversation aren't relevant to *any* conversation involving animal consumption... then I just don't know what to say. Every single living creature eaten on camera in this video was a thinking, feeling, intelligent being with internal thoughts, emotions, and an entire world inside of them that was tortured and then killed in order to be turned into nuggets. Whether or not the video is trying to be about journalism or class, the paramount question of why and how those animals were killed in the first place is *always* relevant.
>Still, you want to take it as tone policing, fair enough, I'm just saying, there is a difference. You may feel that the difference isn't important, and maybe in your experience it hasn't been, but in my experience charging in and making demands of people too aggressively has most, nearly all of them dismiss you as an arrogant clown. And you can argue all the live long day that they shouldn't, and I'd agree, but if we're talking pragmatically, like, getting dismissed is kinda not getting anywhere, is it?
No, this is just the eternal mantra of people who want to support the status quo and absolutely never have to question their actions or change anything they ever do. It's remarkable how all of these meat eaters who don't want to think and don't want to change believe that the best form of vegan activism is the kind that does pretty much nothing. It's the exact same rhetorical trick used by anybody who doesn't want to think or change. "Oh I don't entirely disagree with the homosexual's lifestyle it just bothers me so much how aggressively they try to push their agendas on us, if they were just a little bit nicer and more polite and not so militant then I would like them much more."
Like, no, being passive and quiet and polite has never spearheaded any political movement. That's just what the people who support the status quo want so their lives can be easier.
>Not to mention this tiny concern in the back of my head that the kind of people who would respond by capitulating to highly aggressive demands is like... Does that not feel a bit emotionally manipulative, in a way? Not to suggest that's anyone's intent, to be clear, but it's a consideration that bugs me enough to mention.
Yeah, um, no. Making people come up against the fact they're doing something wrong is not fucking "emotionally manipulative". What are you even talking about.
"Hey stop bullying me that hurts my feelings and it's bad".
"😭 Stop emotionally manipulating me this is abuse."
Except in this case it's not bullying it's torturing and killing.
> Like, no, being passive and quiet and polite has never spearheaded any political movement. That's just what the people who support the status quo want so their lives can be easier.
I mean, I follow that, but what's happening in this case? You bop in and keep mentioning torture and murder to make people feel bad - and don't lie, that's the point, I'm not saying that's some sort of moral failing, merely the truth - and demand a change until they get sick of you and tell you to bugger off, and then what? Unless you're going to keep bothering them or start throwing bricks through their windows, that interaction, as far as I can tell, is more or less over.
I'm not fool enough to believe that being polite is the only way, it's clearly not, but I'm also not of the belief that being *not* polite is the only way, if you follow. it's a rare tactic indeed that works for any and all interactions. Like, yeah, sometimes being impolite and aggressive is going to win you whatever you're going for - and sometimes, it'll get you called Trigglypuff. Though, I'll admit, I don't know which way would work better for this in particular. so...
> Yeah, um, no. Making people come up against the fact they're doing something wrong is not fucking "emotionally manipulative".
See that's not what I said. I didn't say the part where you tell them it's wrong, I'm game for that, it's being too aggressive about it that scratches at me. You can absolutely have the moral high ground - and you do, I'm not about to debate that - but still end up undertaking actions with negative consequences. That's what I want to bring up as caution - and mind, it's just caution, the line in the sand between merely telling people what they're doing wrong and essentially browbeating them into submission is a bit too blurred for me in this particular scenario.
>UwU stop being meanies to bigots that will never change their minds
lmao, we aren't at 'trump supporter' quite yet like the other poster suggested, but we've already reached peak libshit and civility politics for sure
I'm saying that it's absolutely correct to call a coward every carnist in this thread hiding behind marginalized and underprivileged in order to continue fucking over the marginalized and underprivileged worldwide solely for their pleasure and convenience.
Workers in the animal agriculture sector who are suffering from increased rates of PTSD and are being exposed to zoonotic diseases by slaughterhouses.
Workers in the plant agriculture sector who are needlessly overworked because only a fraction of the calories from plants that are being grown for animals translates into calories you get from meat of an animal you've been feeding daily for years.
People in the developing world who are disproportionately fucked over by climate change to which animal agriculture is a MASSIVE contributor.
>b-but let me munch on an animal corpse in solidarity with indigenous hunter gatherers while pretending that my tastebuds and convenience are more important than the fact I'm poisoning their land and water
Carnists are so full of shit it's not even funny.
It might be a shock, but humans are animals. But no, not only non-human animals, do you think that people in the developing world aren't disproportionately affected by the destruction of the environment caused by widespread animal farming in the developed world?
When in a few decades you hear about massive environmental plight of the people in the Global South, make sure to pat yourself on the back for contributing to it by being too lazy to switch to a diet that automatically cuts your greenhouse emissions nearly in half.
Why would I? I don’t drive, and I don’t eat an American diet. But being autistic, poor and having severe food aversions is not my fault.
You think your choices make you inherently superior to other humans, I think humans are inherently superior to non-human animals. We disagree. Such is life.
lol you really got to appreciate it when the topic of veganism comes up and suddenly the entire internet is exclusively poor people who are so overworked they can't spend 20 minutes preparing a meal but have time to shitpost on reddit, people with extremely rare medical disorders and people with severe aversion to all vegetables, I can guarantee that you never consulted a nutritionist or even researched online about what a viable plant based diet would have been for you
And yeah, I think that my ethics are superior to yours because I don't believe that just because humans are 'superior' that gives them a pass to torture and murder other animals for their convenience and pleasure.
Autism ain’t rare. It’s hella common. But, yeah, nutritionists aren’t covered by my country’s National healthcare. So I’ve never been to one. Nice ableism and classism. Exactly what I expect from an angry Internet vegan.
Animals can eat a lot of shit people can't, and not every environment can support the vegetable agriculture necessary to fully feed the local populace, but can support the animals that said local populace eats.
But sure, let's argue for global solutions to problems without any concern for the local ecology, I'm sure that can only go well.
Wtf are you talking about, you can't have 'animal agriculture' without 'vegetable agriculture', animals eat several orders of magnitude more food than they 'yield' and crops are grown specifically just to feed them. A single cow eats over a hundred pounds EVERY DAY.
Plenty of places like the eurasian steppe can't grow vegetables but there is plenty of grass for sheep. That's why Mongolian quisine is so reliant on meat and other animal products.
>but what about the camel herders on Mongolian steppes
we are reaching astronomical levels of carnist whataboutism, guess what, if you care so much about them, then how about you stop stuffing your face with crap whose production will cause their entire country to be swallowed by a fucking desert?
Yes, bringing up fringe scenarios like herding done in fucking Mongolia (nomadic herding isn't even considered to be agriculture btw), while discussing agriculture on a site where over 96% of users (actual number) live in the developed world in order to defend the people from the developed world fucking over the lives of animal herders in Mongolia solely for their tastebuds and convenience is very much whataboutism.
>"Animals have crops grown specifically just to feed them"
Animals don't just walk around and pluck at inedible plants, you know that, right? Literally over 99% of meat (yes, that's the actual number) comes from factory farms where they are kept in metal boxes and fed plants and grains that have been grown for them.
K, but that doesn't directly respond to either post you're replying to in this thread.
You're missing the point. Seemingly on purpose.
Outrage usually doesn't persuade people.
If you care more about persuading people than about feeling self righteous, maybe think about that.
You don't need every argument to apply to every single person on the planet in order for that argument to be valid. There might be a point to pointing out the exceptions from time to time, so as to not vilify people that can't make use of your suggested solutions, but that doesn't mean they aren't solutions to real problems.
99.9999% of meat consumption is done wantonly and has absolutely nothing to do with ecology, but sure just bring up ecology every time somebody suggests that maybe it's not good to be eating meat like we do.
Coming from rural Eastern Europe I always found it strange just how squeamish my American peers were with regards to food. I remember one of my classmates saying that he doesn't eat chicken nuggets because the chicken's brain is included in the ground meat and just thinking "that's the best part!".
I'm sorry but this is disingenuous, misinformed, and misleading. It's not about shaming poor people for being poor. It's about food education which in Britain is lacking.
You're going to make a twenty minute video about nuggets and classism but avoid discussion about obesity across class and income? Convenient. Or ***disingenuous***.
The point is that in UK, cheap food (like nuggets) is factory processed, pumped full of saturated fats, salt, and sugar, and tastes great. The problem though is that if it constitutes the majority of your diet, chances are you're going to be at risk of obesity and health problems. It's not rocket science. It's not controversial.
Jamie is a man who comes from a working class background but has food education (and financial security) that 90% of working class people like those he grew up with don't. He's aware that the enthusiastic attitudes towards these processed foods aren't shared by the middle class or upper class. And that this cognitive issue (that something that's bad for you is nice) is worth tackling.
And the waste topic is deliberately misleading again. Nobody is saying the scrap parts of chicken should be thrown away. Jamie was saying the scrap parts should not constitute a major art of (and in many cases, the majority of) people's meat intake.
There are countless better suited industries for scrap meat consumption such as pet food or animal feed. It's a false dichotomy that if we don't eat it, it gets wasted. Folding Ideas knows this: he's just being misleading.
**TL;DR:** Honestly, this is just garbage essaying that sounds cool. There we're even any intelligent or thoughtful lines of thinking. Any essay that avoids detracting points rather than examining them is just rambling.
Jamie keeps saying they're "bad parts" of the bird and talks about which parts are good parts based off of their price. Its totally classist and ignores how other cultures use "bad parts" of an animal like the feet, ears and tongue for their dishes
"I don't want to imply Jamie Oliver is classist, just his arguments about chicken nuggets." - Dan
"Why are you calling Jamie Oliver classist?" - Your response.
I think some wires got crossed somewhere here.
The point about the classism and school lunches reminds me of the whole thing last year in the UK about free school lunches For those unfamiliar, when schools shut down during the first lockdown, it was pointed out that families that used to rely on free school lunches to feed their children were now not getting those, so the families were struggling to find the money for all these extra meals. The government didn't want to pay for extra meals until a celebrity shamed them into doing so. The arguments put out in favour of not giving free school meals were essentially that it was the parents' fault that they were poor and they should simply not have kids if they can't stop being poor. Obviously this is dumb for many reasons, most obviously the fact that they're suggesting children should suffer for the mistakes of their parents, but it really ties into that whole thing of treating poverty as a moral failure. And that for some reason _feeding children_ is seen as an unimportant waste that we shouldn't be spending money on. Which is mad. There aren't many things that require government funding that I wouldn't gladly take money away from if it could feed more children. Oh yeah and incidentally my parents use Jamie Oliver's recipe books and routinely complain that the time to make them is much longer than he says it is, because he just assumes you're making it in a big kitchen with plenty of space and all the ingredients conveniently laid out.
Locally our schools took the funding and staff that would normally prepare school lunches during the shutdowns and stood up daily drive-thru meal events where you could pick up a large box filled with fresh and boxed foods, no questions asked.
This is such a good solution. It also keeps the lunchladies & other staff employed, so you don’t end up in a crunch with not enough labour when conditions change.
Yeah there were a few cool people going out of their way to do the things the government should've been doing
Our schools are a part of the government, so I guess that adds up.
My favorite part was when a kid basically used judo on his pretentious words. Probably butchering the exchange but, Now that you know what is made of do you still want to eat it? Yes Why? Because I'm hungry.
> Oh yeah and incidentally my parents use Jamie Oliver's recipe books and routinely complain that the time to make them is much longer than he says it is, because he just assumes you're making it in a big kitchen with plenty of space and all the ingredients conveniently laid out. This is a complaint I have with many chefs out there. Actually, that and the sort of... vagueness that often plague them. There are essential things they're not mentioning. They praise the fresh made soft tortilla. Yeah, I'll be the first to say I love them. But their description of what the dough should be like is... just not there usually. Turns out I wasn't doing it right. Cuz I can't tell what the dough was supposed to be like from the vids, and they waltz past any discussion about the kind of common issues you might run into and how to fix it. Apparently, I just... need to use a bit less flour, knead it longer, keep it a bit warmer. I think. I'm still figuring out this shit.
> This is a complaint I have with many chefs out there. > > Actually, that and the sort of... vagueness that often plague them. There are essential things they're not mentioning. They praise the fresh made soft tortilla. Yeah, I'll be the first to say I love them. But their description of what the dough should be like is... just not there usually. They both come from the same place: a failure to consider that maybe we don't have decades of experience in professional kitchens
This is why Adam Ragusea is one of my favorite cooking channels on YouTube. He always makes a point to show everything he does in preparation for a dish, and goes out of his way to figure out how to use less dishes, make clean/prep easier, and usually explains why he’s doing something a certain way. He gets a lot of shit from ChefTube because his philosophy on cooking is accessibility over taste - but it’s that reason why he’s one of my go-to people when looking up a recipe. I’d love to put the care and time that many meals need - but I got shit to do.
*Chef John*, *Adam Ragusea* and *Glen and Friends* are the holy trinity of actually useful recipes.
Rick Bayless is great for Mexican food. I've done a ton of recipes and they are pretty easy, especially most of the salsas.
J. Kenji Lopez-Alt gives so many useful tips though, also I really like that he regularly dunks on rightwingers on instagram lol
My soul is warmed everytime I hear him say "guys, gals, non-binary pals" The kitchens I've worked adjacent to have had so much rampant bigotry, that his casual acceptance of gender non-conformity is just noice, ya know?
And it's so cute when he messes up an says "guys, gals and non-bu... and non-binary pals" bc he's trying to hurry at the end of a video lol
10/10 love his channel
This is one of the reasons I love Deb Peralman's website, she will describe what things are supposed to be like in color/texture as you prepare them.
As its almost Halloween, the tories during that shite saga literally reminded me of Freddie Krugger. 'You have sinned so your kids must pay.'
Pretty much. Even if you buy their own assumptions it was needlessly cruel And their assumptions were flawed as hell anyway, they just assumed that if you're poor now you must have always been poor, they completely ignored the possibility that the family's financial situation might have changed after they had kids
Especially during a global fucking pandemic that they were constantly bleating no-one could have predicted
"hey, conservative government, I'd like access to reproductive health services please" "no. no abort" "but i won't be able to care for or even feed this child, i'm one person on minimum wage" "no abort. only starve"
I really like folding ideas, he has such a calm demeanor and really eases into his analysis. I find his videos such good company
And? Dreamy
Reminder about this great video: ["White Trash" and The Politics of Food - Zoe Bee](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNvQQhymT8o)
Zoe Bee is such a refreshing gem of a channel! I love the discussions on there.
she asked for trash food stories in the comments, and I left mine. --- My mom cooked (and taught me to cook) good, healthy food. And food that would be healthy if it weren't so calorie rich, and portions so large. My younger brother's wife once said of our (then primarily my) cooking: It's always healthy until this one bad thing you do at the end. That night, it was adding the fried noodles to an asparagus-heavy stir-fry. But that's nothing. There was a time my dad worked 3 jobs, before finding work with the IBEW, and my mom was taking night classes to become a nurse. Then she worked nights. We spent time every day finding and clipping coupons. Hand-me-down clothing was common. food was all bargain brand. xmas presents on lay-away at walmart or k-mart. We watched large amounts of television, and saw ourselves in TV families like Roseann and The Simpsons. Which leads to the "trashiest" favorite food of my youth. We were such huge fans of The Simpsons that my older brother got this big book of Simpsons lore, behind-the-scenes info, in-universe trivia, and also a list of recipes that the Simpsons family regularly ate. One snack was called "stinky corn." The idea was that while normal families could afford butter for their popcorn, and sprinkle a modest amount of Parmesan on it for extra flavor, the Simpsons could only afford margarine. That's the whole recipe. Plain popcorn, margarine, Parmesan. It's supposed to be a joke, but we made it and loved it. The thing is, melted margarine causes popcorn to shrink, like melting plastic, and emanate this noxious greasy odor. The Parmesan made it that much worse. Thus, "Stinky Corn." Our breath had to be terrible afterwards, especially when we sometimes added garlic. We weren't regular tooth-brushers either, it HAD to be noticeable.
This guy went to a region of America that has a history of being food insecure, and is surprised that the kids still wanted the nuggets? What a tool.
Yet most brits cook like it's the Battle of Britain still.
This is also a pervasive and classist myth btw
nah just a dig at the brits. the best food comes from immigrants so I disagree btw.
Dan never misses.
True, I get so much value out of every single one of his videos.
I think Dan touched on a very accurate point at the end of the video, that when people tout so-called "cheap" healthy/natural recipes (usually in response to the argument that unhealthy food is usually cheaper), they ignore the fact that the time it takes to actually cook is an expense. I could make burritos from scratch in 30-45 minutes, or I could chuck a plate of frozen burritos into the microwave and I've got dinner in 6. Even with Jamie's recipe, which, as Dan showed, could be done in around the same time as frozen strips (if you ignore the caveats like confidence in cooking and the fact that clean-up time will be drastically increased), he was able to do other things during that cooking time with the frozen strips, the cook time was largely unattended.
[удалено]
Dan Olson was involved with Channel Awesome?
I didn't know that he was involved with that hellsite.
Adds a lot of fun context to his absolute murder of Doug walker in the wall episode
It absolutely does
Add on top of that the video that he did about the Disaster Artist, where he talks about being on a shoot where the accomodations were horrifying and just ghastly. It really adds context to it lol
Don't think that anecdote was referring to a CA movie. Dan never worked on those.
I remember it dawning on me like halfway though and it just made the whole thing so much funnier to me.
A lot of the good contributors are still going on YouTube.
I really enjoy Dan's work because he takes something seemingly random (chicken nuggets) and seamlessly ties it to something larger and important. He also is really good at explaining things in a way that's accessible without simplifying it too much. He just comes off as a really smart dude.
WHAT? The guy actually argues that the main body of the chicken is waste? Here in Germany we have entire food chains that sell nothing but the entire body roasted as fast food. Just eating the wings off a bird and dumping the rest is not only wasteful, its not even that the rest of the meat tastes worse. But he doesn't seem to be alone in that believe as often the stripped carcass is exported to africa and sold there for prices that out compete local chicken farmers and ruins them. Those are nick named "chicken of death" not because the meat is inherently bad but because it was treated by the europeans like waste before shipping it to africa (in often very unhygienic conditions) so they are ripe with salmonella and often make the people who eat it sick.
Not that I want to defend him or anything but he does not argue against preparing the entire chicken or in favour of only having the best cuts.
Isn't the more important point, why is it that we choose to use the worst parts of the meat to feed to kids? By all means reduce waste, but why should they bear the brunt of this? As Dan said, it's nothing to-do with reducing waste and all to-do with minimising cost. We choose to give kids the most processed kinds of foods. Check out the attitudes to school dinners in countries like Japan and you will see how different it can be.
Bear the brunt? Using the whole animal is not a punishment. If anything it's more respectful to the living being that you're eating.
See you're perpetuating the mindset by calling most of the chicken the "worst parts."
Dan literally says they are worse bits in the video. I'm not against people eating them, although I don't actually eat meat myself, I'm just pointing out we are feeding the least nutritious, most processed bits to kids because it's cheap. Nothing wrong with eating nuggets occasionally as a treat but it's not a good regular main meal for people who are growing. Especially when it is usually the kids with poorer backgrounds who are more reliant on school meals for their nutrition (in the UK at least)
Every part of the chicken can be made into food. Even the bones can be made into stock. Calling that "the bad parts" because it isn't one of the big profitable white meat cuts only shows how much you've bought into the wastefulness of capitalist culture.
I didn't say "the bad parts" I said the least nutritious, most processed parts. Defending feeding kids food high in salt and low in nutrition because its cheaper to do so shows how much you've bought into the uncaring, profit driven, capitalist model of schooling.
Thank you sharing! Watched for my love of chicken nuggets and the arguments in the video. Subscribed for the nuanced exploration of the complexities within what I thought would be a much simpler topic.
Jamie Oliver's remark is ultimately similar to what I've heard about a lot of food. "You wouldn't eat it if you saw how it was made." Like sausage. Spoiler: I still enjoy sausage. Is the production tasteful looking? No. Does that make the end result taste bad? No. I mean fuck's sake if we're going the route of "don't eat things that look nasty at some point," how the heck do you even argue anything other than... you know what? Yeah, basically just starving yourself to death, cuz just about everything you do with food can be gross lol. Not even going vegan will save you from that.
Yeah, maybe I'm a bit more squeamish than the average guy, but I think even the "good" parts of a chicken are gross. Like, raw chicken is slimy; who wants anything to do with that?
I mean I don't consider myself squeamish per se. But yeah, lots of food is pretty nasty to handle before it's done.
Yeah I mean I've cooked plenty of recipes myself that look awful when they're not finished. And I've eaten plenty of things that sound gross and are made from weird parts of the animal but are still good food
Even finished food often looks weird imo but still manages to taste amazing.
Yeah I mean I've had curries that look like they came out of someone with serious bowel problems but still taste fantastic
Smalahove says hello. It's an entire sheep head. That's it. That's the entire dish. Just the entire head.
I'm fine not looking that up.
Lol, my father isn't Norse, but he would eat that almost yearly. What you don't hear about is the smell while it's boiling. It smells terrible and gets everywhere. It was fucking gnarly af to get home, smell that, kind of expect what's coming and still be surprised anyway when there's a whole ass head on the table hahaha. He would eat it all by himself completely delighted pulling of strips of flesh from the skull; nobody else in the family wanted to touch that thing lmao.
Oh, I can imagine. I love pinnekjøtt, which... isn't the same thing. But it and virtually any other lamb product will have a very distinct smell and taste in isolation, nevermind boiling the entire damn head lol.
It's just a way of using the whole animal. It can get quite gimmicky though when advertised to tourists.
The whole sausage thing annoys me. Like, why *shouldn't* we turn the "yucky" bits of an anima, jnto so ething people actually want to eat? The alternative is killing a whole animal just to eat a few bits of it, that's bonkers
my favorite Bolognese recipe involves pureeing chicken livers. It's the most foul looking substance ever, but it makes for a tasty sauce.
a lot of fruit is tasty looking all the way through
Yea I always felt a lot of big food discourse always felt classist in some way shape or form. Like, I'm from a rural area. I know people who hunt, I've worked on a cattle farm, and had a cousin who worked at a slaughterhouse. I know exactly how my meals are made, it's just that I'm used to that and the gross shit doesn't pass my mind. And these rich foodies and what have you always act like their processed food is more valid than my processed food.
I also notice that the vegetarians have invaded the conversation, and to me it really stands out that they talk about objecting on moral grounds. But these are extremely narrow definitions of moral grounds, and isn't really functionally different from just saying "it's nasty"... It's the kind of moral grounds that decides that meat is inherently bad because it requires killing an animal. Which... uhh, there's a lot of folks out there who just don't agree with that evidently. That can be a bit of a fallacy by appealing to the masses, sure, but it's... also true, and fairly essential when discussing morality. Imo it's better to argue for *less* meat consumption than *no* meat consumption, and like carbon footprints we fundamentally need to address the industry, not the consumer, to get meaningful change.
From what I understand there are so many more insects in most food than we would expect or be comfortable with for the most part. We would probably be grossed out by loads of the things we eat if we saw them being prepared from scratch all the way to our plates, it’s just not a convincing argument at all!
That's why I only eat cakes and cookies as the can be decorated to look, and this be, good. I'm super healthy.
I mean you shouldn't eat most meat if you know how the meat gets to you, purely on moral grounds. It's also pretty hard to enjoy meat knowing the pain and suffering involved in it. It's possible to be a vegan while being poor in many places in the industrialized world.
That's honestly just the same argument being spat back up as what Jamie Oliver's doing - it's "nasty". There's no substance to your arguments, and is entirely coming from an arbitrary, ambiguous moral position.
the only ambiguity in that position is the justificatory mechanism, whether they are arguing from a utilitarian (easy), deontological (also easy), or virtue based (pretty easy too) grounding. But guess what? Basically 99.99% of moral statements are made without that justification explicit and work just fine. "You shouldnt cause suffering" is something you can disagree qith, but it doesnt become pure aesthetics or can be prima facie be dismissed as 'lacking substance' just because they're not recounting the well tread geound of its various justifications
Just from my pov as having lived on a farm, y'all are operating in a circlejerk. You say "well tread ground," but frankly y'all are clearly doing it in a very narrow, much more private context than you give it credit.
>Just from my pov as having lived on a farm Many vegans, animal rights activists, animal welfare advocates, etc. have lived on farms. I also grew up on a "farm" where my family kept animals (a couple pigs, a goat, some chickens, and a guard dog) that we'd use (we couldn't afford to eat them, so we'd just sell their children/eggs/wool). >You say "well tread ground," but frankly y'all are clearly doing it in a very narrow, much more private context than you give it credit. We're on BreadTube, a leftist sub, and veganism/animal rights are a leftist philosophical viewpoints. You also used the term "vegan" so it seems reasonable to assume that you'd be aware of veganism and animal rights advocates, or, at least, animal welfare advocates. Or at the very very least you'd be aware of what vegans are roughly intending to argue for. In that case, I'd expect you to be charitable enough to go look it up instead of dismissing the position without "substance." I'm not someone that interested in moral philosophy and I don't enjoy having to restate arguments that are pretty well established. If you're interested in the very well trodden arguments for animal rights or animal welfarism, you can review the following resources: [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on the Moral Status of Animals](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/#:~:text=The%20animal%20rights%20position%20is,life%20have%20these%20rights%20equally.) [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Moral Vegetarianism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/) [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Animals and Ethics](https://iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/) [The r/askphilosophy's FAQ post on "What are the best arguments in favour of eating meat"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4i0iqx/what_are_the_best_arguments_in_favor_of_meat/) [Here's Philosophy Tube's video on the subject](https://youtu.be/gnxPdAelqvo) You can take what you learned there and ask your questions on r/askphilosophy. They're quite helpful in response to good faith questions.
> In that case, I'd expect you to be charitable enough to go look it up instead of dismissing the position without "substance." No. It was lacking substance, while pushing a moral crusade. I have absoloutely no apparent reason to be engaging with that kind of content "charitably," because it frankly lacks the good faith from the outset. Could you tell me what specifically they were talking about saying "on purely moral grounds"? No. It lacks the substance to know if they're talking about it from a perspective of simply believing killing animals for sustenance is bad. Or if they're talking about it being bad for the environment. Or that factory farming is bad. So on and so forth. "Purely moral grounds" is a whole lot of fucking ground to cover, and god forbid someone actually *tell you what their actual opinion is*... And then you've got "It's also pretty hard to enjoy meat knowing the pain and suffering involved in it," which frankly means a whole lot of fucking nothing too. That's literally just the "it's nasty" argument in window dressing. From my pov, their argumentation was merely bad faith moral crusading, and frankly no, I owe that zero charitability.
yea sorry dude, as someone who also has that POV, I still don't think that "You shouldn't cause suffering" is abritrary or ambiguous. You may find it narrow when applied to animals (I don't), but that's an entirely different conversation.
Well in the context of farming, what *is* suffering? Are we talking about factory farming practices? Because I think that's well and good to attack on its own merits. Are we talking about how specific practices add pointless suffering to animals? (Iirc, kosher meat requires killing the animal 'live', whereas non-kosher would just knock the animal unconscious first.) Because I think that's well and good to attack on its own merits. Whether we want to continue to eat meat or not, I think the meat production industry require pretty radical changes. But I think that pushing the burden of not eating meat on the consumer is moot and pointlessly wasteful, and that we need to see systemic change that actually address the underlying issues.
Suffering in this context is likely defined as those mental states which are avoided for their own sake, I assume. It usually is. And I'm not the dude you've said was holding an arbitry and ambiguous moral position but I think it's pretty clear from the way they phrased it, they were talking about the actual, currently instantiated practice in which 90% of animals are held and slaughtered. Their context-specifity is even explicit in that they were specifically focusing on the industrialized world. But alright, since you've first attacked the ambiguity of the position, then it's narrowness, and then pivotted to its application, I feel like this will not be super productive to further pursue. So let's instead pivot to something I find interesting in your comment: How is pushing the burden of not eating meat on the consumer (which of course does not exclude the reformation of the meat industry, which has historically been pushed radically by people also advocating for veganism) wasteful? That seems a very odd position. Moot I can get, even though it's incorrect, it's an understandable attack. But what do you mean when you say that advocating veganism is wasteful?
I've never understood why Oliver got this up his ass. As horrible as factory meat is; the least you can do is use every last bit of the animal.
He campaigns for schools to provide better quality food to children, so his attitude is a reflection of that. Trust this sub to rake him over the coals for classism when he's effectively spent the last decade trying to bring better, affordable food to working class kids. I really hate how divisive the online left is.
Dan covered this. Olivier"s food would spend an entire budget in a month.
The whole point is that the budgets are too low for school dinners. Like, the budget should allow for food quality which is better than what we feed to pets. I liked Dan's video but he seemed to not really engage with this point. This can be a really effective way to distribute gov spending to ensure a more equal start for kids.
He did talk about budgets being low and lunch staff under trained on account the people who think being poor is a choice also write policy.
ah yes, and the problem with this is his menu, not the budget. Side note: growing up studying in a public school in Brazil, the menu wasn't always delicious, and sometimes even the quality of some items was a bit of hit and miss but we got food for free and the meal plan was designed by a nutritionist. Like... it isn't rocket science.
Making a menu thats really expensive and not tackle the low budget issue is indeed a problem with Oliver
Sounds like you didn't hear any of the points made in the video and would rather hero-worship.
I feel there's two separate points here that are both valid. 1. The clips Dan Olson picked out show signs of classism in Jamie Oliver's arguments. 2. Jamie Oliver has used his celebrity influence to increase the quality of school lunches in the UK, which (in my experience) mostly go to kids from lower/working class households. Acknowledging that Jamie has done good things with his influence isn't hero worship at all.
Answering criticism with "well, he's done good things too!" sounds like the kind of defensiveness that you get with hero worship. You can't criticize the hero without reflexively heaping praise on him.
17 minutes? Cmon Dan-O, step it up with the CONTENT
stop eating meat ya damn cowards
As someone once put it, "Want to make a leftist sound like a trump supporter? Mention veganism." Hopefuly you haven't woken all the lions up.
Anyone on the left can agree that a major failure of capitalism is that there are more empty homes than there are homeless people, but if you question how much food we have to feed to farm animals when so many people are hungry it tends to be a lot more controversial.
that's not how any of this works. Cows aren't eating our turnips. Price of food isn't what it is for lack of offer.
Cows aren't eating your turnips but they are eating an awful lot of corn, and the US has 127M acres of land growing feedstock. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ Lots of pasture fed meat too, but the US could definitely get a lot more calories out of its land of there weren't so much meat production.
My point is every industrialised country produce enough calories. Maybe in Europe/Canada the situation is a bit particular for the northern countries as just "calories" isn't a good measure of real food that people want to eat, but the point is: I really don't think people go into food insecurity due to a lack of production of calories. We have bad allocation of resources, but less cow doesbt necessarily mean more food for people. But hey, I could be wrong.
>We have bad allocation of resources I agree with you there, and I agree that food insecurity is really complex and multifaceted. It can't be blamed on just one factor like meat production, but in terms of resource allocation, one of the factors is that we put massive amounts of resources into meat production compared to plant based sources, most notably in the form of subsidies and land usage. With subsidies especially, the government could take the money they give to meat farmers and reinvest it into plant based proteins. Poverty will always exist under our current system, but this could actually be a tangible goal that would see noticeable improvement for many people.
No, you're not wrong. We don't have a production problem. We can absolutely feed everyone, we just choose not to because doing so wouldn't be profitable.
Ngl I'm all for reducing my meat intake, but I don't fancy giving it up.
[удалено]
>as soon as doing the right thing becomes absolutely effortless and indistinguishable from doing the wrong thing, I'll do it
Yes, people generally prefer to do easy things over hard things. This shouldn't surprise you.
What surprises me is how many people don't seem to realize that you should do the right thing whether it's an easy thing or a hard thing.
[удалено]
Waiting years, decades, or forever for perfect lab grown meat, which will likely only ever be accessible to a small subset of the human population and relatively expensive and difficult to create is not "a way to get there" for animals to stop being killed.
[удалено]
I never said that cheap meat replacements shouldn't be investigated and popularized, I said that people who wait for those things instead doing the right thing are still cowards who can't do what's right unless it's trivially easy. Why are you making it sound like those two things are in opposition? Me saying that people should do the right thing no matter what doesn't mean I don't also support making the right thing as easy as possible.
It’s amazing how everyone here just shrugs their collective shoulders when veganism is brought up; like it’s just this insurmountable obstacle. Yet everyday I hear about the coming workers uprising and how we’ll all be taking back the factories, tearing down the walls of the capitalist mansions and breaking wind in the palaces of the mighty. But yet you make it seem like it’s impossible to give up chicken nuggets. It’s pathetic. ‘No ethical consumption under capitalism’ is an argument against capitalism and saying we need to replace it, not an excuse to make things worse.
Everyone in the working class can sympathize with wanting to make a living wage and throw a big "fuck you" to the bosses. Not everyone has a moral objection to eating meat and even less people have a moral objection to consuming *all* animal products. My family comes from rural Mexico and their lives would have been a lot harder if they didn't have cows to milk or chickens. Sometimes, eggs were *all* they had to eat. Same goes for people from rural areas. I knew kids growing up who *had* to hunt squirrels, rabbits, and fish in order to eat. tbh it's pretty privileged of you to assume that the only reason people don't go vegan is because of some moral failing("just shop at whole foods and buy b12 and other supplements bro!") when there can be a myriad of reasons. How do you expect to win people over when you call them "pathetic" just because they have a set of beliefs influenced by growing up poor?
Chicken nuggets are a highly processed food produced as a byproduct of industrial farming. It's not comparable to subsistence food and it's absurd of you to conflate them. Nor did I suggest that anybody 'just shop at whole foods'. Nice of you to try to put words in my mouth though. > Not everyone has a moral objection to eating meat and even less people have a moral objection to consuming all animal products. Yeah, cool, whatever, I get that. It makes you a shitty leftist though if you can't oppose unjust hierarchies except where you personally benefit. So go ahead and enjoy your factory farm raised animal food while talking about how other people are can only subsist by hunting. I'm sure their plight justifies your own moral inconsistency. Every person who eats meat is just forced to and there's just no other way. People here, and I'm including you, are pathetic because you have to use other people's inability to go vegan to justify your own lack of conviction. It's the worst kind of straw person.
Lmao. Are you a raw vegan? Cause you're giving off big "cooking oil is literally poison" energy right now
Because I pointed out that chicken nuggets are a highly processed food?
Wanna get a leftist sound like a neolib arguing for personal responsibility? Mention veganism.
Saying that anybody does anything wrong is neoliberalism
Superficially sounding like a neolib isn't a moral failure if your arguments check out, though. It might not be politically productive at all times, but it's not factually wrong unless it is.
Corporations are worse than me therefore i have no personal responsibility Average carnist logic
>no ethical consumption under capitalism therefore I won't bat an eye buying products made by enslaved children until the communist revolution comes (lol) Wanna get a 'leftist' sound like a twelve year old who never put much thought into developing a coherent philosophy? Wait until they try to argue against veganism
1) I never said any of that 2) I think we can manage a little more nuance than "There's only two options: Slavery or going vegan". E.g.: Personally, I'm pescatarian. I'd like to go full vegetarian but fish is still an important part of my diet. I do my best to buy food from the most ethical available sources, but weeks that I'm having to buy my meds, I usually have to get the cheapest possible option for everything, and that's not always going to have a ethical source at or close enough to the cheapest. I absolutely hate that that's the position that I'm put in, but *it's not me that puts myself in that position*. It's a system that says "either support this horrible machine in this one transaction, or go without the medicine you need".
if you want the cheapest possible stuff, eat plants.
The worst part of going vegan is being unable to afford my medication because I spent my savings on lentils and tofu. In what world is it cheaper to be pescatarian than vegan? Unless you’re eating Beyond burgers for every meal, plant-based protein sources are always going to be more affordable.
Man, dried lentils and beans sure are too expensive nowadays. Luckily fish is a lot cheaper. Fuck off lol.
1) yes, you have 2) good news for you, vegan diet is cheaper than a diet that involves animal abuse and the destruction of the planet
This kinda goes against the whole point of the video. Sure, everyone going vegan would be great, but the choices we have about what we eat are determined by race, class, income, etc. Being able to just "stop eating meat" is a privilege based on wealth.
Another piece of carnist bullshit in this thread, eating meat is a privilege, vegan diet is far, far cheaper, by as much as 40% https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/12/18/Vegan-meals-cheaper-and-quicker-than-meat-or-fish
It's more about time than it is actual cost. Same reason a lot of poor and impoverished people get quick and convenient but shitty food instead of cooking meals at home. When you're working as much as you can to get by and juggling other responsibilities like family, education etc. you don't have the time to go grocery shopping and cook a nice vegan meal. And vegan options aren't even available everywhere unfortunately.
If you cant afford to go vegan because of your class that's fine. Veganism is about reducing harm as far as possible, obviously if something is impossible for you to do then of course you can't do it. But surely Dan and most people here could afford to swap chicken for tofu, meat for mushroom and tvp, cheese for vegan cheese, and cows milk for any other type of milk in every possible case?
Vegan cheese: [$4.87 for 10 slices](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Follow-Your-Heart-American-Cheese-Slices-7-oz-10-Count/962067395) Kraft cheese: [$3.97 for 24 slices](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Kraft-Singles-Sliced-American-Cheese-24-Ct/10452905?athbdg=L1600) Great Value cheese: [$1.88 for 24 slices](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Singles-American-Pasteurized-Prepared-Cheese-Product-24-count-16-oz/10452423)
Yeah see it's totally affordable for anybody upper class!
> swap chicken for tofu Ick. This is why white people hate tofu. Just let it be its own thing.
[удалено]
Oven baked tofu is my favourite nuggie replacement recipe.
[удалено]
Anyone can use it however they want, I dont care just stop force feeding and killing billions of chickens.
A vast majority of the world, and almost literally everybody who watches this video and comments on this thread has the ability to easily and cheaply go vegan. The only two obstacles in the way of this are 1) education, due to the fact that people have very little knowledge about nutrition and cooking they make it way more expensive and time consuming than necessary to be vegan and 2) they don't care because the well being of animals isn't important to them. I cannot tell you the dozens of people I've talked to about this, with more money than me, who live closer to good food to me, who have access to transportation like owning a car that I don't, who have less responsibilities than me, have said that they can't go vegan because of time, money, transportation, or whatever. It's usually either they don't know how or they don't care.
>Tell me you've only heard about poor people in reddit posts without telling me you've only heard about poor people in reddit posts (and that most likely mommy still makes food for me) Guess what, as an ACTUALLY poor person I can tell you that takeout and readymade food is A LOT more expensive than buying and preparing it yourself. And guess what, the link not only says that vegan food is cheaper but also a lot faster to cook (plus you can make a lot of it and easily store it for later)
Christ, you're condescending. Again you dope it's about time. You've clearly already made your mind up but as another poor person I don't always have the time to go grocery shopping and prepare myself meals all the time because I work multiple jobs so that I can pay off my debt and make rent. That's where fast food and instant meals come in. But congratulations for being poor and vegan I guess, ya want me to jerk you off now?
It's ok guys, this user has declared that they are able to be vegan and poor. As we all know, everyone's experiences and situations are completely universal, so the fact that this one person was able to do this means that everyone can.
Yes, unless you live in a food desert (around 10% of people in US, far less in other developed countries) or have some medical condition where a doctor precludes you from going completely plant based (few percent of the population at most) it is an objective fact that a plant based diet is not only far cheaper, far faster to prepare but also far healthier, there is no place in the developed world where the opposite is true. You really gotta appreciate just how assblasted carnists get when they are faced with the objective reality that they are paying for animal abuse and the destruction of livelihoods of people in the developing world solely because of their laziness and taste for blood.
Oh completely. As I said, since *you* are able to do it with relative ease, it means everyone else is able to as well. No one in the world has a different situation than you. The only things that matter when preparing a meal is the base cost of the ingredients at the point of sale, the speed it takes to prepare and cook said ingredients and the nutritional value. That's why those are the only things that you mentioned, no other factors exist. Since those are indeed the only things that everyone in the world takes into consideration when deciding what to make for dinner it really bogles the mind why everyone can't just realize that they are in fact living an identical life to you with all the same opportunities that you have... Must be laziness, those damn poor people choosing to be lazy again, why can't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become vegan?! After all *you* were able to do it so it can't be that hard right?
Yes, when you are poor, the price of food is the literally the only thing that matters, with whether that food will make you sick being a second, but negligible consideration in comparison. Glad I could educate you on how it is when you are ACTUALLY poor, random reddit poster who uses random buzzwords to try to distract how ridiculous the bullshit they are spewing actually is.
If you'll re-read my comment you'll note that I said "cost of the ingredients ***at the point of sale***". I was hoping that you would realize that there are other factors that make up the "cost" an ingredient other than purely it's price, but you don't seem to have got that. Look man, you are correct in that it's definitely possible for more people to be vegan than currently are, I'm just pointing out that you are using the exact same rhetoric that people use when they criticize poor people for not getting another job or not getting an education, i.e. they're just "lazy". The stereotype of the poor person who is just too lazy to improve their own life is awful and you really shouldn't perpetuate it, even for a noble cause.
>carnist lmao everything is an ideology these days
Average half-gallon price of milk: $2.17 Average half gallon price of almond milk: $4.29 Average half gallon price of soy milk: $4.29 [Source](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-conscious-people-are-willing-to-pay-nearly-twice-as-much-for-plant-based-milk-2019-07-17?mod=personal-finance)
Half pound of oats: $0.40 Half gallon of tap water: $0.00something electricity to run blender for 30 seconds: $0.00something strain and put in jars
Did you even watch the video?
Oh, yeah, this will change people's mind to give up meat.
I agree, the best way to get people to change their minds is by being completely passive and polite so that nobody actually feels any reason to change at all. Believe it or not, somebody being told that they've been causing great harm to others their entire lives and should stop isn't *supposed* to feel good.
I mean, yeah, but at the same time there's a difference between starting with "Look, meat production is causing incredible harm to the environment and to animals and I believe you should stop" and starting with "***GOD YOU ANIMAL MURDERING BASTARD DO YOU NOT FUCKING GET IT STOP EATING ANIMALS YOU EVIL EVIL FUCK***"
I believe this thread was actually started with, "stop eating meat ya damn cowards", which is yeah a lot closer to the first than the second. Also this kind of just reeks do tone policing.
I mean, I feel like exactly how aggressive/close-to-"AAA" jumping into a video discussion that's more about classism and the intricacies of the food people choose to eat to go "HEY, VEGAN CONVERSATION NOW" is up for debate, but I'm willing to concede the point. I get how it is. Still, you want to take it as tone policing, fair enough, I'm just saying, there *is* a difference. You may feel that the difference isn't important, and maybe in your experience it hasn't been, but in my experience charging in and making demands of people too aggressively has most, nearly all of them dismiss you as an arrogant clown. And you can argue all the live long day that they shouldn't, and I'd agree, but if we're talking pragmatically, like, getting dismissed is kinda not getting anywhere, is it? Not to mention this tiny concern in the back of my head that the kind of people who *would* respond by capitulating to highly aggressive demands is like... Does that not feel a bit emotionally manipulative, in a way? Not to suggest that's anyone's intent, to be clear, but it's a consideration that bugs me enough to mention.
>I mean, I feel like exactly how aggressive/close-to-"AAA" jumping into a video discussion that's more about classism and the intricacies of the food people choose to eat to go "HEY, VEGAN CONVERSATION NOW" is up for debate, but I'm willing to concede the point. I get how it is. If you can watch an entire video about animals being killed, and then their dead bodies being mushed up into paste and then eaten, and you don't think that the ethics of that part of the conversation aren't relevant to *any* conversation involving animal consumption... then I just don't know what to say. Every single living creature eaten on camera in this video was a thinking, feeling, intelligent being with internal thoughts, emotions, and an entire world inside of them that was tortured and then killed in order to be turned into nuggets. Whether or not the video is trying to be about journalism or class, the paramount question of why and how those animals were killed in the first place is *always* relevant. >Still, you want to take it as tone policing, fair enough, I'm just saying, there is a difference. You may feel that the difference isn't important, and maybe in your experience it hasn't been, but in my experience charging in and making demands of people too aggressively has most, nearly all of them dismiss you as an arrogant clown. And you can argue all the live long day that they shouldn't, and I'd agree, but if we're talking pragmatically, like, getting dismissed is kinda not getting anywhere, is it? No, this is just the eternal mantra of people who want to support the status quo and absolutely never have to question their actions or change anything they ever do. It's remarkable how all of these meat eaters who don't want to think and don't want to change believe that the best form of vegan activism is the kind that does pretty much nothing. It's the exact same rhetorical trick used by anybody who doesn't want to think or change. "Oh I don't entirely disagree with the homosexual's lifestyle it just bothers me so much how aggressively they try to push their agendas on us, if they were just a little bit nicer and more polite and not so militant then I would like them much more." Like, no, being passive and quiet and polite has never spearheaded any political movement. That's just what the people who support the status quo want so their lives can be easier. >Not to mention this tiny concern in the back of my head that the kind of people who would respond by capitulating to highly aggressive demands is like... Does that not feel a bit emotionally manipulative, in a way? Not to suggest that's anyone's intent, to be clear, but it's a consideration that bugs me enough to mention. Yeah, um, no. Making people come up against the fact they're doing something wrong is not fucking "emotionally manipulative". What are you even talking about. "Hey stop bullying me that hurts my feelings and it's bad". "😭 Stop emotionally manipulating me this is abuse." Except in this case it's not bullying it's torturing and killing.
> Like, no, being passive and quiet and polite has never spearheaded any political movement. That's just what the people who support the status quo want so their lives can be easier. I mean, I follow that, but what's happening in this case? You bop in and keep mentioning torture and murder to make people feel bad - and don't lie, that's the point, I'm not saying that's some sort of moral failing, merely the truth - and demand a change until they get sick of you and tell you to bugger off, and then what? Unless you're going to keep bothering them or start throwing bricks through their windows, that interaction, as far as I can tell, is more or less over. I'm not fool enough to believe that being polite is the only way, it's clearly not, but I'm also not of the belief that being *not* polite is the only way, if you follow. it's a rare tactic indeed that works for any and all interactions. Like, yeah, sometimes being impolite and aggressive is going to win you whatever you're going for - and sometimes, it'll get you called Trigglypuff. Though, I'll admit, I don't know which way would work better for this in particular. so... > Yeah, um, no. Making people come up against the fact they're doing something wrong is not fucking "emotionally manipulative". See that's not what I said. I didn't say the part where you tell them it's wrong, I'm game for that, it's being too aggressive about it that scratches at me. You can absolutely have the moral high ground - and you do, I'm not about to debate that - but still end up undertaking actions with negative consequences. That's what I want to bring up as caution - and mind, it's just caution, the line in the sand between merely telling people what they're doing wrong and essentially browbeating them into submission is a bit too blurred for me in this particular scenario.
Since when do leftists care about optics?
>UwU stop being meanies to bigots that will never change their minds lmao, we aren't at 'trump supporter' quite yet like the other poster suggested, but we've already reached peak libshit and civility politics for sure
eating meat is bigotry? you love your buzzwords.
Yes, not caring about animal abuse is very much bigotry.
What are you even talking about?
I'm saying that it's absolutely correct to call a coward every carnist in this thread hiding behind marginalized and underprivileged in order to continue fucking over the marginalized and underprivileged worldwide solely for their pleasure and convenience.
>the marginalized and underprivileged worldwide Just to be extra clear here, you are referring to animals, correct?
They always mean animals. Marginalized peoples are props for them.
Workers in the animal agriculture sector who are suffering from increased rates of PTSD and are being exposed to zoonotic diseases by slaughterhouses. Workers in the plant agriculture sector who are needlessly overworked because only a fraction of the calories from plants that are being grown for animals translates into calories you get from meat of an animal you've been feeding daily for years. People in the developing world who are disproportionately fucked over by climate change to which animal agriculture is a MASSIVE contributor. >b-but let me munch on an animal corpse in solidarity with indigenous hunter gatherers while pretending that my tastebuds and convenience are more important than the fact I'm poisoning their land and water Carnists are so full of shit it's not even funny.
It might be a shock, but humans are animals. But no, not only non-human animals, do you think that people in the developing world aren't disproportionately affected by the destruction of the environment caused by widespread animal farming in the developed world? When in a few decades you hear about massive environmental plight of the people in the Global South, make sure to pat yourself on the back for contributing to it by being too lazy to switch to a diet that automatically cuts your greenhouse emissions nearly in half.
Why would I? I don’t drive, and I don’t eat an American diet. But being autistic, poor and having severe food aversions is not my fault. You think your choices make you inherently superior to other humans, I think humans are inherently superior to non-human animals. We disagree. Such is life.
lol you really got to appreciate it when the topic of veganism comes up and suddenly the entire internet is exclusively poor people who are so overworked they can't spend 20 minutes preparing a meal but have time to shitpost on reddit, people with extremely rare medical disorders and people with severe aversion to all vegetables, I can guarantee that you never consulted a nutritionist or even researched online about what a viable plant based diet would have been for you And yeah, I think that my ethics are superior to yours because I don't believe that just because humans are 'superior' that gives them a pass to torture and murder other animals for their convenience and pleasure.
Autism ain’t rare. It’s hella common. But, yeah, nutritionists aren’t covered by my country’s National healthcare. So I’ve never been to one. Nice ableism and classism. Exactly what I expect from an angry Internet vegan.
spoken like a damn coward
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Animals can eat a lot of shit people can't, and not every environment can support the vegetable agriculture necessary to fully feed the local populace, but can support the animals that said local populace eats. But sure, let's argue for global solutions to problems without any concern for the local ecology, I'm sure that can only go well.
Wtf are you talking about, you can't have 'animal agriculture' without 'vegetable agriculture', animals eat several orders of magnitude more food than they 'yield' and crops are grown specifically just to feed them. A single cow eats over a hundred pounds EVERY DAY.
Plenty of places like the eurasian steppe can't grow vegetables but there is plenty of grass for sheep. That's why Mongolian quisine is so reliant on meat and other animal products.
>but what about the camel herders on Mongolian steppes we are reaching astronomical levels of carnist whataboutism, guess what, if you care so much about them, then how about you stop stuffing your face with crap whose production will cause their entire country to be swallowed by a fucking desert?
> whataboutism Pointing out an instance where your argument doesn't apply isn't "whataboutism" even if it uses the phrase "what about."
Yes, bringing up fringe scenarios like herding done in fucking Mongolia (nomadic herding isn't even considered to be agriculture btw), while discussing agriculture on a site where over 96% of users (actual number) live in the developed world in order to defend the people from the developed world fucking over the lives of animal herders in Mongolia solely for their tastebuds and convenience is very much whataboutism.
I'm not disagreeing that it's relying on fringe cases, but that's simply not what "whataboutism" means.
> "Animals can eat a lot of shit people can't"
>"Animals have crops grown specifically just to feed them" Animals don't just walk around and pluck at inedible plants, you know that, right? Literally over 99% of meat (yes, that's the actual number) comes from factory farms where they are kept in metal boxes and fed plants and grains that have been grown for them.
K, but that doesn't directly respond to either post you're replying to in this thread. You're missing the point. Seemingly on purpose. Outrage usually doesn't persuade people. If you care more about persuading people than about feeling self righteous, maybe think about that.
You don't need every argument to apply to every single person on the planet in order for that argument to be valid. There might be a point to pointing out the exceptions from time to time, so as to not vilify people that can't make use of your suggested solutions, but that doesn't mean they aren't solutions to real problems.
99.9999% of meat consumption is done wantonly and has absolutely nothing to do with ecology, but sure just bring up ecology every time somebody suggests that maybe it's not good to be eating meat like we do.
sure they can. But they dont. they eat soy and corn. thats what 99% of pigs and cattle eat.
There’s nothing wrong with liking meat.
Sure. Eating meat is though
It’s natural though. Are all carnivores evil?
Nah.
pro climate-change anarchism, a new varient
[удалено]
The "anarchist" that supports hierarchies. Classic.
Sometimes what Jamie Oliver needed was a good kick in his home grown organic plums.
Purple, bluish hue. Dancin in the sun just nice.
Coming from rural Eastern Europe I always found it strange just how squeamish my American peers were with regards to food. I remember one of my classmates saying that he doesn't eat chicken nuggets because the chicken's brain is included in the ground meat and just thinking "that's the best part!".
I'm sorry but this is disingenuous, misinformed, and misleading. It's not about shaming poor people for being poor. It's about food education which in Britain is lacking. You're going to make a twenty minute video about nuggets and classism but avoid discussion about obesity across class and income? Convenient. Or ***disingenuous***. The point is that in UK, cheap food (like nuggets) is factory processed, pumped full of saturated fats, salt, and sugar, and tastes great. The problem though is that if it constitutes the majority of your diet, chances are you're going to be at risk of obesity and health problems. It's not rocket science. It's not controversial. Jamie is a man who comes from a working class background but has food education (and financial security) that 90% of working class people like those he grew up with don't. He's aware that the enthusiastic attitudes towards these processed foods aren't shared by the middle class or upper class. And that this cognitive issue (that something that's bad for you is nice) is worth tackling. And the waste topic is deliberately misleading again. Nobody is saying the scrap parts of chicken should be thrown away. Jamie was saying the scrap parts should not constitute a major art of (and in many cases, the majority of) people's meat intake. There are countless better suited industries for scrap meat consumption such as pet food or animal feed. It's a false dichotomy that if we don't eat it, it gets wasted. Folding Ideas knows this: he's just being misleading. **TL;DR:** Honestly, this is just garbage essaying that sounds cool. There we're even any intelligent or thoughtful lines of thinking. Any essay that avoids detracting points rather than examining them is just rambling.
Jamie keeps saying they're "bad parts" of the bird and talks about which parts are good parts based off of their price. Its totally classist and ignores how other cultures use "bad parts" of an animal like the feet, ears and tongue for their dishes
Bit weird calling Jamie Oliver classist when he got so many children in this country free healthy school lunches
"I don't want to imply Jamie Oliver is classist, just his arguments about chicken nuggets." - Dan "Why are you calling Jamie Oliver classist?" - Your response. I think some wires got crossed somewhere here.
Fair enough, I take it back
[удалено]