healingsakina:

caramelbaloney:

here

 you know, your argument would be really interesting and intelligent if it weren’t so obvious that you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. or maybe you’re just a jerk who is choosing to argue outside of what i really said.

1) i never suggested eating less vegetables. i think probably most people actually do need more vegetables in their diets and that vegetables are very important. nor did i in any way say i “don’t want to” pay for vegetables: i specifically said that some people CAN’T pay for them, and that there are access issues and barriers to being able to eat only vegetables or to getting quality vegetables.

2) i did not “blame” vegans for anything except those who are two-faced arrogant judgmental assholes who try to force people to live that lifestyle that is not possible for everyone for a number of reasons, one of which being that it is currently not financially feasible for a lot of people, and the vegans i was responding to were actually going so far as to lie and say that it is cheaper to be vegan and everyone should be able to do it.

3) and yes, i do call out the privilege of certain vegans who willfully ignore, and often directly contribute to and actively excuse, abuse of migrant workers. which is really basically what i see you doing here as well. it seems like you are saying it’s a means to an end to abuse migrant workers, they have to accept that abuse for the good of the rest of us, and somewhere down the line we’ll maybe create some kind of change that shifts subsidies etc so that we can “free” them of that abuse. i call major bullshit. on several levels.

• first and foremost being that justice cannot be built on the backs of others. to put it into perspective, say that we were talking slavery (which honestly is what we are talking about in many cases anyway), i mean “Old South” slavery. how would you feel if what was said was “hey, this is the system we have and the government doesn’t help these farms enough so they have to use slaves and instead of boycotting those farms or boycotting cotton & tobacco, you should use MORE cotton & tobacco so that the demand for them will encourage the government to help the farmers out”. really? your solution is: contribute to the abuse in hopes that it will cause change in the long run. this strategy makes no sense at all. but more than that, it is ethically wrong.
• the real reason that people abuse their workers isn’t because the government doesn’t help them enough. it isn’t because there isn’t enough demand for their product. it’s because they can. more demand will only increase the system of abuse by most farms because their goal is production and personal gain.
• there are plenty of ways that we can address policy change and system change that don’t rely on “eat more vegetables” as a single miraculous solution. i didn’t in any way suggest that the government policies aren’t partly responsible and that pressure needs to be brought on that side. but what bothers me is while you are claiming that i “blame” vegans and don’t address the policy/system side (which is not even a true assessment of my critique), you are doing the exact opposite and putting all blame one place and alleviating individuals/movements - and frankly, greedy assed and often racist farmers, of whom i know several - of any responsibility.

my critique is not that veggies are bad, nor that farming is bad, nor that there are not solutions and methods that exist and are already being used to address the issues. my critique was of a very particular set of so-called social justice-minded folks who choose to be both privilege-denying and hypocritical. i am saying, look at the whole picture, look at the whole system. the inherent privilege apparent in so many of the responses to my critique is well portrayed in your response. heaven forbid that we actually talk about human rights abuses. perhaps you think we can just sweep that under the rug. and that, in my book, puts you squarely on the side of the oppressor.

“…vegan demands for the rights of animals STILL overlook the rights of farm workers…the demand for more vegan options will place further burden on those farm workers.” My basic comprehension skills read: vegans care about animals more than people…more vegan options (i.e. more vegetables and less meat)=increased abuse of farm workers.  If you want a book written about how a greater demand for vegan lifestyles will further burden humans, how does that not imply that eating more vegetables is undesirable?

I specifically addressed the problems with access and affordability of vegetables the first time I reblogged you, which you’ve conveniently avoided.  I agreed that it is an important issue.  And true, we must look at the big picture: I also pointed out that meat production is far more expensive to society than veganism, and those additional external costs fall on the poor.  Denial of that is also an outright lie.  I took issue with those who can afford to but choose not to, because their consumption patterns largely determine what is available to others.  And they are the ones who don’t want to pay more for vegetables.  Those who CAN.

I realize that your original argument was in reference to those who can’t, but I also take issue with such arguments that deliberately ignore the relevant points, such as the underlying systematic reasons that they can’t.  Maybe you’ve discussed these reasons in detail along with these posts, but I looked a few pages back and only saw more stuff trashing vegans.  It doesn’t matter if vegans are privileged; they are not the ones making vegetables more expensive or unavailable.  In fact, they are the ones trying to change the system.  They are the ones trying to make fair food choices more widely available.   Arguments that only attack them, while failing to acknowledge the very valid reasons behind their actions, only serve to help maintain the status quo.  And even if you were only attacking some small subsect of vegans, who cares about them?  Their statements are irrelevant, because they are powerless.  Vegans as a group are not in a position to be oppressive, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.  Bitterly attacking such straw men does nothing but distract from the justifications for the movement, and that is a type of derailment.

I’m unclear how you concluded that what I’m “doing here” is aiming to “willfully ignore, and often directly contribute to and actively excuse, abuse of migrant workers.” Or that “it’s a means to an end to abuse migrant workers, they have to accept that abuse for the good of the rest of us…”  Perhaps I should pass the reading comprehension test on to you.  ”heaven forbid that we actually talk about human rights abuses. perhaps you think we can just sweep that under the rug.”  I’m confused, because I thought we were talking about human rights.  My entire post, and the one preceding it, was about human rights abuses.  I said nothing about animals.  I fully agree that the abuse of migrant workers is a serious issue and not one that can easily be fixed by a few people eating more veggies.  But because I did not roll out a comprehensive, 50-step plan to ensure that migrant farm workers would be treated justly, it was somehow fair to ignore everything I did bring up (such as considering the potential benefits to such workers in a world that relies less on subsidized agriculture)?  You’ve offered zero suggestions for solutions while aiming a misguided offensive on the few minor suggestions in existence.  Did you even follow the links that supersoygrrrl posted before attacking her personally?  If you continually refuse to acknowledge the livestock industry’s explicit role in human rights abuses, or the intersection between subsidized meat consumption and the plight of fruit/vegetable farm workers, then you are the one remaining willfully ignorant.  And by resorting to name-calling, you are the one effectively shutting down the conversation.

(via atapestryofdisasters-deactivate)