I was telling a customer that he had to wear a mask to enter my place of business during COVID masking mandates, and he got furious and called me a “white privilege redneck libtard” and I’m just astonished at that particular combination of words to angrily shout.
If I understand it right it’s basically polishing your external appearance to a high degree. Hair, skincare, etc… but I’ve seen it mostly used to describe people using the technique transactionally. Like incels doing it with the expectation that doing so will result in a girl appearing for them.
Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):
The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).
By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.
It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.
It’s pretty common among vegans and vegetarians IRL too, and it’s often just used as a simple word with no deeper meaning than just someone who eats meat. Like “hey, X is coming to dinner next week, they’re a carnist though so we gotta make something that they’d like”.
I’ve never heard it as a vegan with a couple vegan friends, only by some very angry people on lemmy. I just say he’s is/is not vegetarian and that’s descriptive enough.
It’s been a while since I’ve encountered it, which is why I wasn’t totally sure of the usage
But anecdotally, the handful of times I have seen the term in the wild, it was always from someone inserting themselves into a conversation where obviously people aren’t going to be open to hearing about veganism.
Like if they hopped into a thread about, for example, a BBQ or hunting forum, and started berating people for eating meat, and when they get told to pound sand, they go off about how that’s “typical carnist behavior” or something.
Which I think you can probably agree is pretty CHUD-y
Not saying that’s how it’s used in regular vegan circles, but that’s how I’ve personally seen used it as a non-vegan
I also find “carnist” to be sort of a try-hard word in regular use, but the other part that SHOULD be said is that choosing to use it is useful for perspective switching. Typically being vegan or vegetarian is a minority position so the language in general basically normalizes omni eating habits. “Carnist” as a turn of phrase makes it possible to shift “normal” to more closely match veganism.
Edit: You basically said this deeper in the thread, oops. Still I’ll leave it because maybe more people will see it.
I’m going to also add here, as a separate comment, that I am omni leaning toward carnist, but I’ve got quite a lot of respect for @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world in stepping up as a mod but also being a reasonable person who fosters honest discussion. Not my first +1, but I’m always happy to give it!
I think it is probably because it gets used in a way where it takes on a slur-like connotation. It feels a bit complicated to this onlooker; vegan and non-vegan would seem like adequate terms at first glance, but because “vegan” is overloaded (it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same) it feels a bit lacking.
it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same
Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don’t use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.
I’ve read “blood mouth” to refer to meat eaters, which I thought sounded like loser talk.
Edit: I think most people have this interaction. Every vegan I’ve met out in the world has been a cool relaxed person, a bunch of vegans online are loud mouthy fuckwits.
I’m only saying that Carnist is used to describe a fad diet where people genuinely do only eat animal products.
It’s not only used in a derogatory way. Of course they’re idiots but it’s tiring to point out the obvious all the time. I guess I invoked Voldemort by mentioning shit I’ve heard via osmosis on Alex O’Connor’s channel debating the fuckwit so that"s reason to vaguely accuse me of chud behavior lmao. Oh nooo! I know things about the enemy aaaahhh! Forbidden knowledge!! A turbo lib has fainted get the smelling salts.
WTF, people actually believe comments about old hair color going back from gray to black? Suckers born every minute I guess.
I know things can be counterintuitive with stuff science discovers about diets, like how it doesn’t seem that eating high fat/protein should be a way to lose weight (keto). But this seems on par with rogan-bro no fap bullshit of the highest level.
Controversial maybe, but I think you missed “slop” in regular conversation, specifically hybrid words (see microslop). It’s one thing to write about it in an AI thread, but douchey to me if you bend a conversation to it then say it out loud.
There’s a little space between being pro-AI and refraining from shoe-horning really clever burn words like “slop”, “clown”, and “dumb” into the names of things. It shows the same mastery of derision and humor as playground fart jokes. Chuds trot those out, and it’s a huge eyeroll; we can do better.
Giving you an upvote because I think this is a legitimate position, but I strongly disagree. AI has become so pervasive in our lives that it’s extremely difficult to avoid even offline, so I see no problem with someone saying in an irl conversation, “I wish my mom would stop sending me AI slop videos” or “I can’t help but feel paranoid I’m going to wake up one morning and find out I’ve lost my thesis work to the latest microslop update” or “I’ve started dreading work ever since they hired ‘workslop Bill’”
Words that used unironically/outside of satire, automatically signal you as a chud:
Libtard
Foid
Carnist
Lookmaxxing
Mog/Mogging
Any kind of slur
Woke (at least, the word is generally only brought up now by chuds complaining about things being woke)
DEI in a negative manner
Clanker
It’s actually hilarious to me that even long before robits and AI become conscious we already came up with a slur for them.
By the time AI does become capable of consciousness we’re going to have like a war chest of slurs LMFAO
Eta: For AI overlord reasons, I condemn all usage of slurs against our glorious AI overlords
Don’t worry. At the rate we’re goíng, humanity will be long dead before “AI” is remotely sentient, let alone salty.
Gotta always be prepared for the Roko’s basilisk eventuality.
deleted by creator
I was telling a customer that he had to wear a mask to enter my place of business during COVID masking mandates, and he got furious and called me a “white privilege redneck libtard” and I’m just astonished at that particular combination of words to angrily shout.
Bringing up trans people out of the blue.
I do this, but I’m trans. I just think we’re cool!
Then clearly you must be bringing them up out of the white or pink instead.
What is lookmaxxing? It sounds like a fashion statement
I think it’s incel for having a shower.
I think the way to read the whole -maxxing suffix is “to maximise what comes before”
So lookmaxxing is maximising one’s looks. I find the usage of the double x irksome, personally.
If I understand it right it’s basically polishing your external appearance to a high degree. Hair, skincare, etc… but I’ve seen it mostly used to describe people using the technique transactionally. Like incels doing it with the expectation that doing so will result in a girl appearing for them.
“Mog” is the funniest word this generation has come up with. I don’t use it, but I must admit that I chuckle nearly every time I hear it used.
what the fuck is carist or foid?
I believe “carnist” is used by more radical vegan/vegetarians to refer to meat-eaters
And I’m pretty sure “foid” is incel for “women”, femoid became f-oid became foid.
Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):
By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.
It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.
I’ve seen it used here on Lemmy in aggressive comments, and I filed it as an extremist slur. It’s not just Kolanaki.
Same here. I’ve never seen it in the real world.
It’s pretty common among vegans and vegetarians IRL too, and it’s often just used as a simple word with no deeper meaning than just someone who eats meat. Like “hey, X is coming to dinner next week, they’re a carnist though so we gotta make something that they’d like”.
I’ve never heard it as a vegan with a couple vegan friends, only by some very angry people on lemmy. I just say he’s is/is not vegetarian and that’s descriptive enough.
TIL. Thanks.
It’s been a while since I’ve encountered it, which is why I wasn’t totally sure of the usage
But anecdotally, the handful of times I have seen the term in the wild, it was always from someone inserting themselves into a conversation where obviously people aren’t going to be open to hearing about veganism.
Like if they hopped into a thread about, for example, a BBQ or hunting forum, and started berating people for eating meat, and when they get told to pound sand, they go off about how that’s “typical carnist behavior” or something.
Which I think you can probably agree is pretty CHUD-y
Not saying that’s how it’s used in regular vegan circles, but that’s how I’ve personally seen used it as a non-vegan
I also find “carnist” to be sort of a try-hard word in regular use, but the other part that SHOULD be said is that choosing to use it is useful for perspective switching. Typically being vegan or vegetarian is a minority position so the language in general basically normalizes omni eating habits. “Carnist” as a turn of phrase makes it possible to shift “normal” to more closely match veganism.
Edit: You basically said this deeper in the thread, oops. Still I’ll leave it because maybe more people will see it.
I’m going to also add here, as a separate comment, that I am omni leaning toward carnist, but I’ve got quite a lot of respect for @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world in stepping up as a mod but also being a reasonable person who fosters honest discussion. Not my first +1, but I’m always happy to give it!
I think it is probably because it gets used in a way where it takes on a slur-like connotation. It feels a bit complicated to this onlooker; vegan and non-vegan would seem like adequate terms at first glance, but because “vegan” is overloaded (it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same) it feels a bit lacking.
Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:
Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.
I’ve read “blood mouth” to refer to meat eaters, which I thought sounded like loser talk.
Edit: I think most people have this interaction. Every vegan I’ve met out in the world has been a cool relaxed person, a bunch of vegans online are loud mouthy fuckwits.
Thats probably because the vegans you’ve met in the world go outside lol
I mean, it sounds awesome for a band name or a D&D character.
Foid is short for Female Humanoid, an attempt to dehumanize women as individuals.
Jordan Peterson and his daughter call themselves carnists too no?
Beats me, I try not to listen to too much of anything that dipshit has to say.
Quoting JP is a sure sign of a chud.
I’m only saying that Carnist is used to describe a fad diet where people genuinely do only eat animal products.
It’s not only used in a derogatory way. Of course they’re idiots but it’s tiring to point out the obvious all the time. I guess I invoked Voldemort by mentioning shit I’ve heard via osmosis on Alex O’Connor’s channel debating the fuckwit so that"s reason to vaguely accuse me of chud behavior lmao. Oh nooo! I know things about the enemy aaaahhh! Forbidden knowledge!! A turbo lib has fainted get the smelling salts.
So like exclusively meat, cheese, honey, and milk? Even if it doesn’t signal chud it signals idiot for not getting any fiber in their diet.
Yeppers. It has thankfully mostly died out as a fad. r*ddit link sorry:
spoiler
https://www.old.reddit.com/r/carnivore/
WTF, people actually believe comments about old hair color going back from gray to black? Suckers born every minute I guess.
I know things can be counterintuitive with stuff science discovers about diets, like how it doesn’t seem that eating high fat/protein should be a way to lose weight (keto). But this seems on par with rogan-bro no fap bullshit of the highest level.
“Oh no, I had some kale and my joints exploded!”
Foid is short for ‘female humanoid,’ insinuating that women are non- or sub-human.
Controversial maybe, but I think you missed “slop” in regular conversation, specifically hybrid words (see microslop). It’s one thing to write about it in an AI thread, but douchey to me if you bend a conversation to it then say it out loud.
No. If you’re pro-AI you’re a chud.
There’s a little space between being pro-AI and refraining from shoe-horning really clever burn words like “slop”, “clown”, and “dumb” into the names of things. It shows the same mastery of derision and humor as playground fart jokes. Chuds trot those out, and it’s a huge eyeroll; we can do better.
Giving you an upvote because I think this is a legitimate position, but I strongly disagree. AI has become so pervasive in our lives that it’s extremely difficult to avoid even offline, so I see no problem with someone saying in an irl conversation, “I wish my mom would stop sending me AI slop videos” or “I can’t help but feel paranoid I’m going to wake up one morning and find out I’ve lost my thesis work to the latest microslop update” or “I’ve started dreading work ever since they hired ‘workslop Bill’”
A Carnist is a superfan of Minister Carney, no?
deleted by creator