I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It’s always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
I appreciate that you are willing to engage on the topic respectfully. And you ask good questions.
I have spent some time pondering the choice of veganism vs meat eating vs vegetarianism in the past.
I agree it is important to examine one’s emotional reactions. That is how, ultimately, I left behind religion. And that experience is what colors my view and provides the answer to my reaction.
To wit, one of the (many) things that I chafed against was people dictating to me what my morality must be as if they are the final arbiters of absolute morality. It is one thing to disagree, to share your own morality, to state your beliefs. To state what the other person must believe, that is what I find annoying.
It’s an interesting topic because one then has to ask, what is the difference between this and me arguing with a bigot? I believe very strongly that people are all on equal footing and of equal regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender identity / expression, etc.
So how do I engage with racists…and why? E.g., Is it to change their minds? I mean that would be nice. But really it is to make certain their viewpoint never goes unchallenged.
And if I am morally reprehensible to a vegan, does that give them the right to challenge me? Yes. Does it give them the right to tell me what my morality must be? Hmm. If yes then I have the right to tell bigots what their morality must be too and I haven’t grounds for complaint if someone does this to me. If no, then I may need to engage differently with bigots.
Now I could argue “but I am right about bigotry” and “being omnivorous isn’t actually wrong” … But that’s from my perspective. I’m trying to step out of my belief system to look at this.
It isn’t the scientific facts that are an issue; I am aware of them and don’t dispute them. I have no qualms about reducing or eliminating most of the meat industry based on its environmental impacts. And I do wish to reduce my meat consumption on those grounds, not on moral grounds.
To a bigot, your challenges are annoying so they would avoid talking with you. So if you do want to engage with them, constantly (and aggressively) challenging their bigotry will prevent that. But why would you want to interact with bigots unless you absolutely had to? Their bigotry chafes you as much or more than your challenges chafe them. But also, if you live in some backwater place, and constantly seeking out and challenging bigotry means everybody around you wants nothing to do with you, then you’re going to have a rough time.
In the same way, a vegan person challenging your dietary choices chafes you, and they may feel (and you may understand) that they have every reason to make the challenge, but it still is likely to prevent you wanting to engage with them. If most people around them are not vegan, and they seek out opportunities to challenge people, they’re going to have a bad time.
But I also think there is a big difference between being in the minority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. vegans in meat-eating society) and being the majority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. religious area and self-righteous pricks starting conversations by asking if you are worried about going to hell).
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It’s always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
I appreciate that you are willing to engage on the topic respectfully. And you ask good questions.
I have spent some time pondering the choice of veganism vs meat eating vs vegetarianism in the past.
I agree it is important to examine one’s emotional reactions. That is how, ultimately, I left behind religion. And that experience is what colors my view and provides the answer to my reaction.
To wit, one of the (many) things that I chafed against was people dictating to me what my morality must be as if they are the final arbiters of absolute morality. It is one thing to disagree, to share your own morality, to state your beliefs. To state what the other person must believe, that is what I find annoying.
It’s an interesting topic because one then has to ask, what is the difference between this and me arguing with a bigot? I believe very strongly that people are all on equal footing and of equal regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender identity / expression, etc.
So how do I engage with racists…and why? E.g., Is it to change their minds? I mean that would be nice. But really it is to make certain their viewpoint never goes unchallenged.
And if I am morally reprehensible to a vegan, does that give them the right to challenge me? Yes. Does it give them the right to tell me what my morality must be? Hmm. If yes then I have the right to tell bigots what their morality must be too and I haven’t grounds for complaint if someone does this to me. If no, then I may need to engage differently with bigots.
Now I could argue “but I am right about bigotry” and “being omnivorous isn’t actually wrong” … But that’s from my perspective. I’m trying to step out of my belief system to look at this.
It isn’t the scientific facts that are an issue; I am aware of them and don’t dispute them. I have no qualms about reducing or eliminating most of the meat industry based on its environmental impacts. And I do wish to reduce my meat consumption on those grounds, not on moral grounds.
I’ve got an… overly simplified answer:
To a bigot, your challenges are annoying so they would avoid talking with you. So if you do want to engage with them, constantly (and aggressively) challenging their bigotry will prevent that. But why would you want to interact with bigots unless you absolutely had to? Their bigotry chafes you as much or more than your challenges chafe them. But also, if you live in some backwater place, and constantly seeking out and challenging bigotry means everybody around you wants nothing to do with you, then you’re going to have a rough time.
In the same way, a vegan person challenging your dietary choices chafes you, and they may feel (and you may understand) that they have every reason to make the challenge, but it still is likely to prevent you wanting to engage with them. If most people around them are not vegan, and they seek out opportunities to challenge people, they’re going to have a bad time.
But I also think there is a big difference between being in the minority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. vegans in meat-eating society) and being the majority and seeking out opportunities to challenge people (e.g. religious area and self-righteous pricks starting conversations by asking if you are worried about going to hell).