london w
Misplaced Lens Cap

Product Placement
Keni
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
KIROKAZE
No title available
RMH
hello vonnie

No title available

tannertan36

Andulka

Kaledo Art
we're not kids anymore.
art blog(derogatory)
Jules of Nature
Show & Tell
Three Goblin Art

Love Begins

ellievsbear
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from Japan
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from Japan

seen from Japan
seen from Japan
seen from Japan
seen from Japan

seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Japan
seen from Japan

seen from United States

seen from Japan
seen from Japan
seen from Japan
@mang0vegan
london w
Veganism/Vegetarianism, sobriety, and voluntary celibacy/not seeking a relationship all engender a very similar bizarre outsized “reverse-FOMO” response from the general population
Immediately provide a reason why “you could NEVER” (this has not been asked)
Instantly push the boundaries that have been set (do you want to tryyy some??? Are you suuurrrre?)
bring up some Internet personality/celebrity/literally random other guy u know who also has that trait and is a huge bitch abt it
Claim the person is being self-centered and whiny for… saying something about themselves…
traumadump about some specific personal issues you have only tangentially related to the subject
All to like complete strangers… like i’m sorry I said why I haven’t tried the carnitas god
this isn't vagueposting about anyone since it's just really popular right now to say "being a vegan isn't even good for the environment. it's better to eat locally farmed animal protein then imported weird plants" but like?! is that an issue? source for dumb vegans insisting on eating a palm heart every day instead of farm salmon? that is NOT the dichotomy. you guys are making shit up to be quite honest
people are not eating a lot of sustainable, local meat product. they are in fact eating mass-produced meat from as far away as it can list in a fridge or freezer. people absolutely strawman the vegan agenda as eating nothing but agave and palm oil. like, really? there are also locally farmed vegetables??? in fact, they're way easier to access than this local sustainable animal protein you all are alleging. I'm not vegan either but i want some hard numbers as to why a black bean patty and seitan are worse than any random ribeye from the supermarket. ya weirdos.
Even if the straw man were true, the conclusion would still be false. Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. You can read about this in detail here along with peer reviewed sources but the crux of the issue is that in terms of emissions, what you eat is far more important than where it is from.
As George Monbiot points out in his book Regenesis (an excellent and very well researched book on this topic): ‘You would have to ship a kilo of dried peas roughly one hundred times around the world before it’s greenhouse gases matched those of a kilo of local beef.’
Accessibility is something that nobody making these arguments seems to want to talk about, either, and you’re right to point it out. How many people can actually afford to buy locally raised beef? When compared with almost any other wisely chosen plant protein, we are talking many times the price for a product that is less sustainable and less healthy to boot. The vast majority of people in the US and Western Europe are buying factory farmed meat, statistically.
What this comes down to is that people misrepresent what meat eaters eat, while also having no idea what vegans eat. So we end up with this bizarre dichotomy where we’re comparing locally raised beef to agave and quinoa. Instead of factory farmed meat to canned lentils, chickpeas, beans, peas, dried pasta and noodles, tofu and frozen veg, which would be a much more honest comparison.
The really sad thing is, that even according to their own wildly inaccurate and obviously self-serving comparison, locally farmed beef would still be orders of magnitude more environmentally damaging than any niche vegan product that they want to pretend we’re all eating as the main part of our diet. It is all just absolutely pathetic.
Average vegan diet according to Tumblr:
(The jacket is made from PU and one is consumed for each meal, everything is made with child slave labor outside of our galaxy and flown in using rocket ships).
But no one can eat the flesh of a slaughtered animal without having used the hand of a man as slaughterer. Suppose that we had to kill for ourselves the creatures whose bodies we would fain have upon our table, is there one woman in a hundred who would go to the slaughterhouse to slay the bullock, the calf, the sheep or the pig? ... But if we could not do it, nor see it done; if we are so refined that we cannot allow close contact between ourselves and the butchers who furnish this food; if we feel that they are so coarsened by their trade that their very bodies are made repulsive by the constant contact of the blood with which they must be continually besmirched; if we recognize the physical coarseness which results by the brutalization of others, and demand that some should be brutal in order that we may eat the results of their brutality? We are not free from the brutalizing results of that trade simply because we take no direct part in it.
Annie Besant. Speech given at Manchester, 18th October 1897.
How do you get better being around/disagreeing with family?
I’m trying to remember I was in their place just recently, but now the relationship has changed since animal products are everywhere. I already disagree with them on a lot of things, which is hard enough to deal with because I hate disagreeing with anyone (even if I’m in the right), but this has kind of tipped over the iceberg. I like to think I’m nuanced about everything but when it comes to them I just want to shake them and scream ‘open your eyes!’
They support me but part of me wonders if they just see it as ‘quirky anon being quirky’. They’ve admitted they don’t want to know, which I’m torn about. Because on one hand while I want them to see and read what I did and become vegan, the idea of them doing that and then not being vegan….is scary. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Does it get easier? Family events, family gatherings? Just being around non vegan food? Should I even want it to get easier? Wouldn’t that be betraying my ethics?
Apologies for the downer ask. While I’m in your inbox I just want to say thank you for the reply you gave to my other anon a while ago (the spiralling one about owning a cat). It really helped me ease my anxieties (aided by talking to a therapist also (:). So thank you
I think that fundamentally, this is about accepting that you are not in control of, or responsible for, anyone else’s behaviour. You gain control what you do, you can make sure that the way you engage with the people around you is in keeping with your own ethics, but that is really the extent of it. I know this all sounds so obvious but it took me a long time and a lot of activism to actually internalise this lesson.
People are complicated, there is enormous social pressure to conform, there is millions of dollars in advertising and corporate lobbying all bent on making sure that people never really make the connection between the suffering of animals and the flesh that is on their plate. None of this is an excuse, but I think it takes something beyond just knowing what happens to animals to actually make that leap and that allow that emotionally and cognitive connection, rather than just knowing something as an intellectual abstract. The conditions have to be just right.
For me, functioning in the world requires a certain amount of conscious disconnecting. I’m on the train way to travel to a work event as I type this, the tables will be filled with the secretions and flesh of animals who probably suffered greatly and died in fear and in pain. I know that, but if I see a suffering pig in every ham sandwich on that table I wouldn’t be able to function, I couldn’t make small talk with the people eating it. I think you have to find a way to distance yourself mentally from that just to live a normal life.
Some people may argue that is ‘betraying your ethics,’ but you’re vegan, so how is that a betrayal? Besides, what is the alternative? Is me breaking down and shouting at everyone who reaches for a sausage roll going to change their mind? I think that it is far better for animals if I can find a way to be level-headed about it and maintain connections with others, so that if someone actually did want to explore veganism, they’d know you’d be willing to help them without judgement.
I’ve been told this advice “isn’t very vegan” on tumblr before, but I’ve been an activist longer than most people here and I know what works and what is sustainable in the long term. If you are struggling with normal social interactions and events then I think it’s time to turn your attention to other interests for a while. Stop watching documentaries and reading books about veganism, just give yourself a little bit of a break from it.
Yes, you absolutely should want it to get easier. Animals don’t need you to suffer for them, they need you to be able to maintain your energy and mental health enough to be able to maintain veganism for life, and advocate effectively when the opportunity presents itself. I admire the passion and it speaks so well of you, but if you burn too fiercely on this you will burn out. Find a way to distract yourself and foster some peace, for your own sake and for the animals you’re advocating for.
Thanks for the kind words as well, I’m glad my previous reply helped you out a bit. I hope that this one does, too!
i can understand someone not wanting to eat meat but if you refuse to use wool or think wool is inhumane you are straight up stupid
The fact that you don’t understand or agree with a particular perspective does not make the person who holds it stupid; that is the height of arrogance. I don’t agree with people who publicly shill for a multi-billion dollar industry for free, but I don’t assume that they’re stupid for doing it. Wool is generally opposed on two grounds, neither of which are unreasonable:
1) Animal rights/welfare
In my experience, people who hold the view that anyone who doesn’t agree that wool is ethical must be stupid generally believe that wool production is as innocuous as a haircut, but this is just a testament to how effective the wool industry has been at cultivating a benign public image. Sheep do need to be sheared, because we purposely breed them to overproduce wool. This is done for the same reason we breed pigs who are too large, turkeys who are too fat to even stand up, chickens who produce far more eggs than is healthy, and cows with udders so huge that they are prone to infection.
These animals are selectively bred, man-made creatures who can barely even be called the same animal as their wild counterparts. Intentionally breeding sheep to produce too much wool to make a profit, then using the fact that they now need human intervention to be comfortable in order to continue to profit from this arrangement, is a self-serving and circular argument.
While obtaining wool does not technically require the deaths of the animals who are farmed for it, this does not mean that sheep do not die as a direct result of the wool industry, or that the production or purchasing of wool is without harm. Sheep raised specifically for their wool are often treated as little more than wool-producing machines.
Shortly after birth, lambs are castrated if they are male and have their tails cut off, often without anesthetic. Shearers are often paid per sheep rather than per hour, which encourages fast processing speeds. It is perhaps unsurprising then, that injuries are fairly common; they can range from small scratches to deep, painful wounds. Sheep are often sheared too close or when it is too cold – this is done to maximise profit, but it means that many sheep die from exposure or hypothermia. Once their wool production declines in quality, sheep are almost always sent to slaughter. This is also true of many of their lambs, who can be killed as young as two months old during lambing season, and almost all lamb on supermarket shelves will be from animals who weren’t allowed to live for a single year.
This may just be my limited intelligence talking, but even to my very simple mind it would seem that the wool industry and the meat industry are inextricably linked. How can it be that you can completely understand objecting to killing an animal for meat, but you can’t understand objecting to exploiting an animal for their fleece, then killing them and their babies for meat?
From an animal rights perspective, even aside from welfare issues, abolitionists object to wool because we believe that it is fundamentally wrong to breed, exploit and kill sentient being for the purposes of profit. We believe that it is wrong for anyone’s labour, body and life to be solely devoted to serving someone else’s interests rather than their own. We believe that, to the extent that we are able to give it to them, non-human animals deserve life, liberty and bodily autonomy. Is that really so stupid?
2) Environmental Reasons
As ruminants, sheep produce a lot of methane. Methane is the primary contributor to the formation of ground-level ozone, a hazardous air pollutant and greenhouse gas, exposure to which causes 1 million premature deaths every year. Over 20 years, it is 80 times more potent at warming the planet than carbon dioxide.
Unlike animals raised for meat, the average lifespan of a sheep farmed for wool is 10-12 years, over this entire time they are grazing and producing large quantities of methane. According to one analysis of wool production in Australia, the world’s top exporter, the wool required to make one knit sweater is responsible for 27 times more greenhouse gases than a comparable Australian cotton sweater, and requires 247 times more land. The below chart shows one study’s estimate of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions in kilograms per 264 grams of fiber for seven different fabrics:
Emissions are not the only environmental impact of wool production, either. The environmental activist and journalist George Monbiot calls sheep ‘the white plague‘, and with good reason. Through overgrazing, sheep reduce the biological diversity of the sites they frequent. Where land has been deforested to accommodate them, they ensure that trees cannot re-populate these desolate areas by eating any green shoots that make their way above the compacted soil. The fact that farmers often trap, kill, or poison any predators who might harm their livestock does not help.
The industry is well aware of this impact, and while there are efforts to reduce the impact of sheep through selective breeding and better management, the industry has embraced the same greenwashing techniques as big oil. The greenwashing of wool is particularly pronounced, which is largely why we all have that pastoral fantasy image of what it means to farm sheep. As the 2021 report by the Center for the Biological Diversity and Collective Fashion Justice put it:
“Wool is not a fiber simply provided by nature — it is a scaled product of modern industrial, chemical, ecological and genetic intervention that’s a significant contributor to the climate crisis, land degradation, water use, pollution, and biodiversity loss.”
Replacing Wool
This is made all the worse by the fact that wool is very easily replaced by more sustainable alternatives. The most common alternative is one of the best – organic cotton. Conventionally grown cotton often involves pesticide use and far higher water use, whereas organic cotton reduces these problems considerably. Recycled cotton is even better, though tends to be more expensive. It is worth noting that the climate impact of cotton can vary greatly depending on how and where it is grown, but this is also true of sheep’s wool.
Even accounting for these variations, sheep’s wool is wildly unsustainable and extremely resource-intensive, by just about any metric that makes sense.
If your immediate response to learning this is to point out that cotton can’t keep you warm in cold weather (this is the standard rebuttal), then you may be surprised to learn that thick-weave cotton is very warm, including knits, flannel, and fleece. These are the same forms that you’d buy wool in for its warmth. Wool is still going to be warmer (and so is polyester), but for all but the most extreme cold, organic cotton will serve you well if you layer sensibly.
Cotton is not the only alternative, though. Hemp is extremely sustainable, it is very robust, doesn’t require pesticides, is cheap to produce with little land, and can be weaved into fleece just as wool can. It is also much more sustainable than even organic cotton. Hemp is also an excellent insulator, and it helps that it is antibacterial and antimicrobial.
There are also synthetic, non-plastic alternatives to consider, like rayon and bamboo, which while a natural material is usually subject to cellulose treatment, chemical processing, and mechanical procedures to form the fibers. These are particularly good for dealing with moisture while retaining heat.
Many people want a completely plastic free wardrobe (though wool is often blended with it), but for those who don’t then recycled plastic can also form part of a sustainable, animal-free wardrobe, and is a good way for manufacturers to use plastic that would otherwise end up in landfill. You can also buy second hand, which will always be more sustainable than anything you buy new.
Conclusion
You can disagree with this line of reasoning, most people do. Yours is the opinion of the overwhelming majority, it has millions of dollars of advertising and corporate lobbying reinforcing it and I’ve seen a post worded almost exactly like yours literally hundreds or times. But the fact that we have arrived at different conclusions doesn’t mean that one of us must be stupid.
You can believe that animals don’t deserve any rights, that it is fine to exploit sentient beings to serve capitalist interests, and for landowners to ruin vast tracts of often formerly forested land for grazing and polluting our air with methane to produce a material that few people actually need. But to assume that anyone who has an earnest moral objection to the wool industry must just be lacking in intelligence is incredibly narrow minded, cynical, and mean-spirited.
Over 50 million buffalo who were roaming the Prairies in the mid-nineteenth century were almost entirely exterminated by 1880. As anticipated by the Western colonists, the end of the buffalo also marked the end of active resistance from the Plains Indigenous peoples who were deprived of their main subsistence and way of life. As the bison disappeared from the Prairies together with the Plains tribes who were dispossessed of their lands and relocated to reservations, Western ranchers colonized the newly seized territories with other colonized subjects, the cows. Famished Indigenous tribes were then forced to accept “beef” rations from the US government which increased the Indigenous peoples’ compliance and co-dependence on the colonial state. The environmental costs of animal colonialism in the Great Plains and beyond have been devastating. With the annihilation of the buffalo, this largest ecosystem in North America was disrupted and irretrievably changed. While the buffalo cultivated the prairie and lived in symbiosis with all of the other living organisms who were thriving in this ecosystem, the cows on the other hand deplete the lands, and overgrazing causes biodiversity loss and desertification. Industrialized monocultural agriculture brought further changes to the landscape that is now “teeming with pumps, irrigation systems, combines, and chemical additives. Much of the original ecosystem has been destroyed.” The prairies, once full of life, are now a stark reminder of the ills of colonization.
"Animal Colonialism in North America: Milk Colonialism, Environmental Racism, and Indigenous Veganism", Denisa Krásná
As the link between animal agriculture and climate breakdown becomes clearer, if anything, we are seeing more ordinary people falling over themselves to defend an industry that is destroying our planet, polluting our communities, exploiting animals and human workers. This is especially worrying to see from leftists, in spaces that are supposed to be progressive. I promise you, you do not need to spend your time greenwashing leather and wool, repeating blatant industry propaganda about veganism, 'regenerative agriculture' or whatever other buzzword they're using to sow doubt this week. The industry already spends millions of your dollars to lobby our politicians and influence public opinion; they don't need you to do it for free.
Vox – The greenwashing of wool explained
New Republic – The comforting lie of climate-friendly meat
Guardian – Big Beef’s climate messaging machine
The Breakthrough – Is Feedlot Beef Better for Environment?
International Journey of Biodiversity – Misinformation on Science of Grazed Ecosystems
Food Climate Research Network – Grazed & Confused
Science 2.0 – The regenerative ranching racket
DeSmog – A guide to six greenwashing terms
Truthdig – The backlash to plant-based meats
Independent – Meat & dairy industries downplaying role in climate crisis using tobacco tactics
Guardian – Meat & dairy lobbyists turn out in record numbers at COP28
Greenpeace – How Big Agriculture is borrowing Big Oil’s playbook at COP28
Guardian – Plans to present meat as ‘sustainable nutrition’ at Cop28 revealed
Guardian – Ex-officials at UN farming body say work on methane emissions was censored
Guardian – How UN food body played down role of farming in climate change
QZ – The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet
The Times – Red Tractor farms more likely to pollute environment
Influence Map – European meat & dairy industry weaken EU’s climate policies
The Grocer – Meat Industry lobbying behind cultured meat bans
Food Unfolded – Truth, tactics and the mist of meat lobby science
Business Green – Climate lobbying: Are meat and dairy lobbyists the ‘new merchants of doubt’?
Vox - A newly surfaced document reveals the beef industry’s secret climate plan
Man what the hell is it about hamsters that there's so many horrifically and hilariously dark stories about them dying, everyone I know that has had a hamster or knows someone with a hamster has at least one story about a ridiculously fucked up hamster death.
Most peaceful hamster death:
The pretty simple answer is hamsters are exotic pets that should not be given to children but are given to children because they're seen as small and bear-like. They're treated like toys by the pet shop industry and all housing for them manufactured outside of a handful of retailers like Pawhut are absolutely not suited to their needs. The bath sands most people use for them are toxic for their lungs and give them cancers and the food they eat for the most part is hay-based which is undigestable to them and provides no nutrients. They die horrible deaths because they're treated as objects and toys and not treated like living creatures and animals who deserve to be treated with dignity and care. The pet industry is at the head of this issue. Most dwarf hamsters are also hybrids which should not exist, they are bred in breeding mills, often sexually not yet matured (my rescue hamster was rescued from a mill, pregnant with 3 pups when she was just 2 weeks old) and due to the hybridization of the Campbell's and Winter White species they are born with neurological and spine deficiencies which make them act poorly. They are also often put in miniature cages that do not meet their needs with 1 or more other hamsters. They are solitary and extremely territorial creatures and so they kill each other in fights when locked in cages together. All of this so megacorps that sell you plastic tubes for 60$ and bags of grass sticks for 30$ can make a killing off these little babies.
The simple answer for their suffering is yet again capitalism.
And if you think you had a hamster that you raised well because your pet store told you what to get, then you did not.
you guys Need to start seeing bugs as animals im not even joking anymore. the second u start seeing them as tiny animals the more your world opens up and the more you accept different types of life Into that world. youll begin accepting that even life you cant understand is still worth living. and itll legitimately make you a better person. fuck
Like "veganism is good for the environment" and "we should all be vegans" are generalisations. Sure, there are going to be cases wherein someone should not be vegan or in which all their food is magically super sustainable because they grow it all on their own farm and just eat 1 egg a day from their tiny little chicken coop because they need protein and absolutely can't get beans etc.
And frankly I'm kinda feeling right now like...deal with the generalisation? When I see "running is good for you" stuff or "we should all be exercising more" I don't go on a long rant about how omg I can't run and not everyone should be exercising so this article is bad actually. I accept it's not about me and move on.
When someone says "murder is bad" I assume they don't think it's bad if in self-defence. I don't need them to clarify when they think murder isn't awful, because yeah, most of the time murder is not good lol.
Pretty much every social justice movement makes generalisations. It's primarily because going "X is good unless..." waters down what you're saying and distracts from the point. For example look at all the people who bring up why some people can't be vegan despite not being in those groups themselves. It's a distraction so they don't need to think about their own motives.
(I've literally had people living on over 5k a month telling me about how veganism is bad because not everyone can afford fake meat, for example. Like mate that's extremely unrelated to why you are not going vegan.)
I just get tired of being expected to clarify every single exception to veganism. I don't care to argue over the "nuance" of "veganism is good for the environment" just as I don't care to argue the "nuance" of "running is a good form of exercise". Would eating vegan for you personally genuinely be worse for the environment? Okay, cool. Don't care, too busy trying to explain to everyone else why their beef burger is shit for our planet.
The Greenwashing of Leather and Wool
There is a great deal of money being put into the greenwashing of animal products, particularly leather and wool, and the purposeful erasure of any alternatives except for plastic.
Animal agriculture industries have been accused of using the same tactics as big oil corporations to sow doubt and downplay their own role in the climate crisis. It is frustrating to see this kind of corporate propaganda repeated so gleefully by so-called leftists in progressive spaces.
Here are three articles I’ve written in an attempt to counter this misinformation. Hopefully you can save these to help you respond to anyone peddling these industry myths later, and then maybe we can talk about literally anything else…
For all their problems, you can’t accuse of the wool industry of being bad at image management. When we think of happy sheep munching away o
Unless you (wisely) stay off social media entirely, you have likely run into some of the extremely common discourse surrounding leather and
If you have been sent this post, you have likely made the almost ubiquitous assumption that when you’re choosing between materials, your onl
Emphasizing the importance of having at least something to remember them by, the World Wildlife Fund announced Wednesday that it was now just trying to get a couple of nice photos of every animal species for posterity. “At this point, we’re pretty much committed to taking some high-quality, well-lit pictures of the world’s remaining fauna, so future generations can get a clear sense of what they were like,” said WWF board chairman Neville Isdell, adding that his organization had already begun reallocating its resources from conservation campaigns to producing majestic photographic portraits.
Full Story
I know the focus of veganism isn’t the environmental aspect, but I was wondering if you know of any sources refuting the idea that “vegetables shipped from all over the world produce more emissions than meat bought locally”? I think I‘ve read that transport emissions pale in contrast to emissions produced by food while growing, but I can’t find a source…sorry if this has been asked before!
“Eat local” is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it'
Our World in data is a great source for things like this. If you’re interested in food security, sustainability and related issues, I’d thoroughly recommend picking up Regenesis: Feeding The World Without Decourong The Planet by George Monbiot. Here is a relevant quote from the book:
‘Another mistaken belief is that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to eat food that is locally grown. There might be good social and cultural reasons to buy local food. Local markets might help to enhance the food system market modularity and resilience. But there are seldom good climate reasons. This is because the greenhouse gases emitted by moving food are tiny by comparison to those emitted by growing it.
For example, if you buy pasture-fed beef or lamb, the contribution of transport to its total climate costs, depending on where it comes from, is likely to be between 0.5 and 2 per cent. Raising the meat accounts for roughly 95 per cent of its emissions (the rest are caused by processing, packing, storing and displaying it). You would have to ship a kilo of dried peas roughly one hundred times around the world before it’s greenhouse gases matched those of a kilo of local beef.’
i bring a "they shouldnt have that wild animal in their house" sort of vibe to the conversation that enjoyers of cute animal videos dont really like
in an effort to be a more annoying vegan in 2025 i'm calling your food she, he, or they from now on
Me: *eats lentil soup*
My uncle who grew up sleeping on the porch of a communal house in the countryside under a dictatorship because his family was too poor to afford beds for the kids let alone a house: lol vegans eat like poor people
Western middle-class self-proclaimed activist on tumbler dot com: the privilege to think people can afford to eat lentils...