Lol, yeah Eisel is a bit of a mixed bag. Quite a controversial figure in the vegan community who many disagree with on a lot of things. But I think the actions he advocates for are probably positive for the most part (not destroying nature, not exploiting animals etc, even extending that further than a lot of vegans will by saying we shouldn’t own pets etc), even if his views, ideas and expressions can be problematic. I agree that part especially at the end about saying non-human animals are “mindless” didn’t sit well with me, and the implication that their lives aren’t very meaningful. It also continually surprises me that he actually cares about not harming/using animals given how lowly he sometimes speaks of them in comparison to humans and how focused he is on the supposed greatness/potential of humanity and civilisation. For him, veganism/animal rights is a “civilising mission” for humanity to stop doing barbaric things for the good of our own evolution, as much as or perhaps even more than it is for the good of the animals themselves. I think you’re right that it’s a more than slightly egoistic and anthropocentric perspective for sure. But again, at least he seems to place some value on non-human animals sufficiently to the degree that he maintains it’s not acceptable to abuse them, and holds fairly high standards for that comparably to his standards for human rights. I primarily mention him in the topic of this post as one of the only people I’m aware of actively speaking out about the concept of petism / pet ownership and why vegans/animal liberationists shouldn’t support it, rather than for his other musings. He rarely focuses on one point at a time and usually drags in multiple other topics into the discussion, lol, so it’s hard to find him talking exclusively on that issue for reference. Like you said his book quotes are pretty eloquent.

I would generally agree plastic = bad in most cases, though it’s probably an unavoidable necessity for our modern world. It should be reduced where possible. However, plastic = bad doesn’t change the fact that animal farming is usually far worse for the environment.

There are 2 “organic” alternatives to synthetic leather (aside from not buying any of them) : plant-based leather or animal-based leather (which is not exactly completely organic or natural considering the plastic coating and chemicals used to preserve and produce it). 1 is better than synthetic leather and 1 is worse. I’ll let you work out which is which :) Spoiler: plant-based comes out on top

Also, leather uses plastic coating. A fact many people don’t know. It’s also dead flesh that’s been heavily preserved with chemicals in order to not decompose and to remain usable. It’s far from the natural product people would have us believe. Keep in mind the massive size of the industry and propaganda similar to the meat and dairy industries which it’s directly connected to.

Setting aside plant-based leather which is definitely more eco friendly than animal leather (and the fact most of the ways in which leather are used are wholly unnecessary to begin with), I don’t agree that synthetic leather is worse for the environment. In fact it seems like it’s still a lot better than leather products.

A 2017 report entitled “The Pulse of the Fashion Industry” went into some detail on this subject. Real leather is regarded as being much worse for the environment than faux leather, primarily due to the massive water requirements, fossil fuel usage and contribution to the eutrophication of waterways. The report concluded that synthetic leather has less than half the environmental impact of cow leather and rated cow leather as the least environmentally friendly of the commonly used raw materials in the fashion industry.

This video also goes into some of the reasons why animal leather is so damaging to the environment and why not only plant based leather but even synthetic leather is a lot better: https://youtu.be/x-UGgf7i0qM?si=tcnfiT8wVOj4ii4_

All that aside, veganism is about not exploiting animals, and buying leather definitely does that. By supporting leather you’re supporting beef. There are even some cattle farmers that raise animals specifically for leather. It’s a highly profitable industry and can probably be considered a co-product rather than a byproduct. The ethical thing to do both for animals and the environment is to boycott leather and either avoid any kind if you want to or use plant based or even synthetic leather.

Sorry and I hope we can set this issue to rest since it was not the purpose of my post at all. I’m here to talk about fuggs

This is the true animal rights mindset. Reject petism / mascotism. Animals are not living toys or playthings, they are individuals. They are ends in and of themselves and not merely means to our ends. The pet industry is horrific along with pet ownership itself and all the rights violations, sufferings and deprivations it causes, many of which are overlooked or dismissed by “pet owners” or petists.

Have you listened to or read anything by Eisel Mazard by any chance? His newest livestream touched on the topic (don’t be thrown off by the title, he does talk about petism) https://www.youtube.com/live/SSiVZ0UIwbM .

Lucie Munson also has a good podcast on “pet ownership” and veganism. https://youtu.be/GD-6XJfkF2I

One thing I would say though, I think animals should be referred to as “they” or he/she, rather than “it”. This helps to individualise them and see them as someones and not somethings, individuals vs objects. “The dog was restrained and we chained them/he/her (rather than it).” I believe language can have a powerful effect in how we view other animals leading to how they’re treated societally. For the same reason I reject the use of animals as insults, such as calling a human a pig derogatorily.

I wish this site was more like Reddit’s anarchy tbh lol. I see it as essentially a free speech platform aside from extreme cases.

So how do we determine if a question is nonsense? I didn’t realise the questions had to be necessarily important

https://timesofindia.com/life-style/food-news/vegetables-that-are-fruits-and-fruits-that-are-actually-vegetables-we-finally-have-the-answer/amp_etphotostory/71348897.cms

https://www.businessinsider.com/fruits-that-are-vegetables-2018-12?amp

https://food.ndtv.com/food-drinks/9-common-foods-you-call-vegetables-are-actually-fruits-4084701

https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/could-going-vegan-help-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=The worldwide phase out of,from Stanford University and the

Need to drop meat & dairy consumption in rich nations if we have any hope of managing climate change while we transition out of fossil fuels, which will take time.

Likes are anonymous on YouTube.

After researching your great word fuckerism (which I’m guessing you coined since I can’t easily find mentions of it online), I found this: Sexual orientation discrimination (also known as sexualism) is discrimination based on a person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.. This isn’t entirely clear and could be interpreted as relating to “sexualising”, which means to make something sexual, and “homosexism” might be more specific to discrimination against homosexual people.

We also have a related concept of gender binarism (or in some uses, genderism (such as here, here) (though genderism can also apparently mean the opposite thing, to negatively describe gender-non-binarism(?), or what is referred to as “gender ideology” by people with “anti-gender” prejudice)) to describe specifically discrimination of “gender nonconfirming” (or non-binary-gendered) individuals (rather than transphobia or LGBTphobia for the same lexical confusion theoretically). Anti-genderism also makes sense as a term for this, I suppose. Anti-LGBTism ([Anti-LGBT rhetoric](Anti-LGBTism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric)) could also work as a term for discrimination against LGBT people in general (horrific paper).

I also found a term, HOCD, which can mean excessive fear of becoming or being homosexual, though it can also literally means a form of OCD relating to homosexuality, but it’s the closest thing to “fear of homosexuality” (“FOHO”?) that I found, albeit a form that only applies to a fear around one’s own possible homosexuality rather than a fear of homosexuality in general regardless of one’s own sexuality.

“Autohomophobia – Hatred or fear of homosexuals, most often by members of the same community i.e. homosexuals.”

Could have been but unfortunately I don’t think it really fits based on that definition… I think it’s like being homosexual and yet hating (or fearing) homosexuals. The type of person I described may or may not be homosexual (or closeted) themself, but is simply afraid of the concept, without the negative connotation of an implication of hatred.

However that reminds me that I was also wondering about what to call racism toward one’s own race, since “internalized racism” seems to describe being racist to your own race as a result of discrimination that you’ve already experienced, almost like a Stockholm syndrome type thing where you begin to sympathise with your oppressor for a sense of safety or belonging (or something), but someone can certainly be racist toward their own race even if they’ve never experienced discrimination based on their race before and even if they’re not generally a discriminated race.

I appreciate what you’re saying, certainly someone could claim to be just afraid of homosexuality while using that as a cover for actually hating it or being prejudiced against it or homosexual people. But I think bigotry, meaning “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group”, doesn’t exactly fit the hypothetical I described of a person who’s just afraid of the concept without harboring any hateful feelings or displaying any discriminatory behaviors toward it. Shouldn’t we help that person come to terms with their fear and be understanding, while certainly helping them to tackle that fear (without accusing them of doing something wrong, presuming that they weren’t hypothetically)?

I see what you mean. I guess it’s hard though because currently they can already say that (they aren’t afraid of gay people and therefore aren’t “homophobic” if interpeting the word literally, but they just hate them), whereas if there was a word that meant hatred of gay people, they would have to admit they are that thing instead, which would then be viewed worse by society in a similar way to racism or misogyny etc. If a word existed for it, they would have no recourse but to admit that even if they aren’t technically homophobic (though they are by the common understanding and usage of the word), they are still word that means hateful/discriminatory toward gay people. And if there’s no distinction, I don’t know what we can say to people who aren’t hateful but just afraid of the idea of homosexuality. What do they tell their therapist? “I have a fear of homosexuality and/or gay people but I don’t hate it/them”? That’s a mouthful and a simple word could suffice couldn’t it?

Then may I propose a neologism: “Homosexualism” or “Homosexism” (discrimination of homosexual people)? Or alternatively “FOHO” (fear of homosexuality)? It would be interesting if another word already existed though.

THIS!! Why didn’t anyone else tell him? I’m glad you did. He might not die of fantasy now.

I’m pretty sure their underlying reason was a fundamentalist conservative Christian ideology against homosexuality as well as against feminism, which they explained. They accused me of having no morality since I’m not religious, and said that without a religious authority to govern morality, it can’t exist. Like you said, all the other arguments were just distractions to cover up their true motivations for being against things like LGBT rights, women’s rights, and animal rights/veganism. I don’t know how it relates to their vaccine and covid ideas though, that just seemed like conspiracy theory nonsense.