Can Meat Eaters be Easy to Offend?

[K12]

I'm a vegetarian and I have occassionally gotten a few "you think you're better than me" type reactions but they aren't that common. People don't like being moralised to and sometimes take a pre-emptive approach in the assumption that you're going to do that. I get the piss taken out of me fairly often for being a vegetarian but its usually in a friendly way.

Having said that I don't usually bring up my vegetarianism unless it's relevant and I never argue that other people should be vegetarians, I generally take the stance that it's much easier than you might expect and it does some. My way of spreading vegetarianism is just learning how to cook good veggie food and offering to make it for people. Maybe a more direct approach would attract more aggressive defense.

There's a fairly predictable experiential bias in play here. You always see more bad behaviour from people you disagree with because the ones you agree with won't see any need to argue with you and hence display their bad behaviour. You're only going to be able to tell that someone is easily offended if you say something that offends them. I don't think I've ever met an arrogant Christian-harassing Atheist but if I did how would I tell since I and most of my friends are Atheists so when the subject comes up there's no one for them to harass?

 

[Dizchu]

Hmm, interestingly from what I've seen, most of the replies that have had the same observations I have had are from vegans and vegetarians, while meat eaters have a hard time believing such attitudes exist in the first place. So basically it's a clash of worldviews, the status quo vs. what could possibly be regarded as a counterculture.

I'm not accusing anyone of ignorance, it is the nature of having a position that goes against what is generally accepted as "normal". It's an "outside-looking-in" situation.

Easy to offend has to exist on a scale in which it is "Easy-Normal-Hard" or some variation. By definition, normal is most people. Try not being inherently contradictory, and I won't have a problem with it. Your analogy changing "Religious" to "A minority sect of religious people" is weak sauce.

I mean "easy" as in they're the vast majority of the population, their lifestyles are under no threat (well, certainly not from vegans) and they pretty much represent "mainstream" sensibilities. Much like Christians in the USA, who amusingly think that criticism of their religious institutions are a direct attack on them. Of course, "not all Christians" just like "not all meat eaters". But you have these two majority groups who "call the shots", and somehow feel threatened by criticism. Not of themselves but of systems they take for granted.

I understand that meat is a big part of many people's lives but so's oil, and people don't get nearly as worked up over the environmental concerns of fossil fuel consumption. Many people have electronic devices or clothes that were made in foreign factories with poor working conditions, yet they don't lash out when the nature of sweatshops are revealed. There's even popular condemnation of hunting. But meat is sacred, criticism of that industry is transgressive, "dangerous".

Personal attacks are shitty yeah, the blame isn't on any individual because it's the nature of capitalism. People want more meat than ever, they want it as fast and as often as possible. That demand has to be met and corners must be cut to do so. But why do people equate criticism of that system with a personal attack on themselves? Because personally I think a lot of meat eaters also feel incredibly uncomfortable with the system.

 

[JamesStone]

I'm getting a "Why does everybody hate Nintendo?" waft from this, where fans complain of an opposition that simply isn't there.

Wait this is a thing? First time I've ever heard of it.

Are you telling me you've never seen a response like "mmm bacon is delicious" or "my food eats your food" when vegans say something publicly? I mean I suppose it's not something you see in open conversation often outside the internet, but look at any comments section on articles or videos that criticise the meat industry and you'll see this behaviour.

Jokes. You're seriously complaining about jokes in a thread titled "are X easy to offend". You do realize the inherent hypocrisy of it, do you not? No one's that innocent.

Also, if you're basing your evaluation of responses by the comment secions of the Internet, anything and anyone can be easy to offend. Big surprise, the loud minority who feels the need to complain in a written manner about something like the meat industry might, just might be sensitive about that particular topic.

So essentially, you made a gross assumption based on overevaluating a small response by a vocal minority and memetic jokes. Here is your problem.

 

[Naraka]

Hmm, interestingly from what I've seen, most of the replies that have had the same observations I have had are from vegans and vegetarians, while meat eaters have a hard time believing such attitudes exist in the first place. So basically it's a clash of worldviews, the status quo vs. what could possibly be regarded as a counterculture.

I'm not accusing anyone of ignorance, it is the nature of having a position that goes against what is generally accepted as "normal". It's an "outside-looking-in" situation.

Easy to offend has to exist on a scale in which it is "Easy-Normal-Hard" or some variation. By definition, normal is most people. Try not being inherently contradictory, and I won't have a problem with it. Your analogy changing "Religious" to "A minority sect of religious people" is weak sauce.

I mean "easy" as in they're the vast majority of the population, their lifestyles are under no threat (well, certainly not from vegans) and they pretty much represent "mainstream" sensibilities. Much like Christians in the USA, who amusingly think that criticism of their religious institutions are a direct attack on them. Of course, "not all Christians" just like "not all meat eaters". But you have these two majority groups who "call the shots", and somehow feel threatened by criticism. Not of themselves but of systems they take for granted.

I understand that meat is a big part of many people's lives but so's oil, and people don't get nearly as worked up over the environmental concerns of fossil fuel consumption. Many people have electronic devices or clothes that were made in foreign factories with poor working conditions, yet they don't lash out when the nature of sweatshops are revealed. There's even popular condemnation of hunting. But meat is sacred, criticism of that industry is transgressive, "dangerous".

Personal attacks are shitty yeah, the blame isn't on any individual because it's the nature of capitalism. People want more meat than ever, they want it as fast and as often as possible. That demand has to be met and corners must be cut to do so. But why do people equate criticism of that system with a personal attack on themselves? Because personally I think a lot of meat eaters also feel incredibly uncomfortable with the system.

So you mean "Easy" as shorthand for three paragraphs of bitter ranting, and you wonder if people other than yourself are thin skinned?

Fix your own home buddy.

I'm getting a "Why does everybody hate Nintendo?" waft from this, where fans complain of an opposition that simply isn't there.

Wait this is a thing? First time I've ever heard of it.

Are you telling me you've never seen a response like "mmm bacon is delicious" or "my food eats your food" when vegans say something publicly? I mean I suppose it's not something you see in open conversation often outside the internet, but look at any comments section on articles or videos that criticise the meat industry and you'll see this behaviour.

Jokes. You're seriously complaining about jokes in a thread titled "are X easy to offend". You do realize the inherent hypocrisy of it, do you not? No one's that innocent.

Also, if you're basing your evaluation of responses by the comment secions of the Internet, anything and anyone can be easy to offend. Big surprise, the loud minority who feels the need to complain in a written manner about something like the meat industry might, just might be sensitive about that particular topic.

So essentially, you made a gross assumption based on overevaluating a small response by a vocal minority and memetic jokes. Here is your problem.

I think it's simpler, based on the OP's responses and OP post, they just wanted to start some predictable shit. This seems to be the normal mode of discourse for loudly self-proclaimed vegans.

 

[PapaGreg096]

As long as you are no Vegan Gains or that ***** who eats 50 bananas a day then we are cool

 

[Areloch]

Can a number of people from a group that *literally* contains billions of people be easily offended.



Why yes. Yes, they could.

If you were asking if MOST of them are easily offended, that's a much more specific and interesting question. That said, I would say no.

 

[K12]

Most people eat meat, so if 6+ billion people are all one way, then they're not "Easy to offend" by definition, they're normal.

People on the majority can't be easy to offend by definition...

I think a few pages in your dictionary must have got stuck together.

 

[maninahat]

I tried being a vegetarian right around the time I was dating the daughter of a cow farmer. My views didn't exactly wash with her or her parents, and I think that they felt it was their god given duty to try and snap me out of it by either randomly challenging my philosophy, or just by giving me meat at meal times (I might think eating animals was wrong, but so is waste and being a bad guest). Others do the same things as well - not everyone, naturally, just the occasional boorish person who treats my preferences as an affront.

So yes, I think that if you happen to let slip you are vegetarian, people will take some kind of exception to it. It is most likely the stereotype that vegetarians are being picky, hippie, sanctimonious, smug bastards that make non-vegetarians think it is okay to start pontificating back at them.

 

[Dizchu]

So you mean "Easy" as shorthand for three paragraphs of bitter ranting, and you wonder if people other than yourself are thin skinned?

Bitter ranting? Not once did I insult anyone, not once did I accuse anyone of anything, not once did I judge people for what they eat. I merely noticed a pattern of behaviour (that, may I remind you, others have noticed too) and wondered why it happens.

It's classic deflection. I don't even criticise your diet, just point out that knee-jerk reactions exist to these criticisms and as a result I get... a knee-jerk reaction. Combined with an ad-hominem tangent.

I think it's simpler, based on the OP's responses and OP post, they just wanted to start some predictable shit. This seems to be the normal mode of discourse for loudly self-proclaimed vegans.

Spoiler alert: I'm not a vegan and even though I only stopped eating meat recently (around a year ago), I've noticed this behaviour for around a decade before that.

Jokes. You're seriously complaining about jokes in a thread titled "are X easy to offend". You do realize the inherent hypocrisy of it, do you not? No one's that innocent.

I don't find the jokes offensive though? I think some of them are pretty funny. I think misogyny is a bad thing but I still chuckle at certain "sexist" jokes at the expense of women (though self-awareness is necessary).

I said this before, the "jokes" appear to be a prefab response. Much like "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" or "get back in the kitchen". They're meant to be flippant deflections of criticism, an admission of "I have nothing to contribute".

So essentially, you made a gross assumption based on overevaluating a small response by a vocal minority and memetic jokes. Here is your problem.

Yes it is a vocal minority, but it's a persistent one that gathers a lot of support. As I said, others in the thread have noticed this behaviour. The reason why I think it's worth talking about is because it's an inversion of how people generally tend to think these discussions go. People assume that those that don't eat meat are pushing their diet in other peoples' faces, yet a number of people have noticed that the opposite is true.

That's what I was interested in discussing. Interestingly the thread has been a tad self-fulfilling. I noticed that some meat eaters are really easy to provoke and wondered why that was, explicitly stating that I hold no judgements (because I'd be judging the majority of the planet and seeing as I still consume animal products, myself), and the response was "wow these damn vegans again", "what's wrong with eating meat?", "wow you're so judgemental".

I've responded calmly, I have little emotional investment in this discussion (rather it was motivated by curiosity), yet what I'm saying is considered aggressive. Sure, maybe I should not have assumed that my experiences are consistent with other peoples' and I admitted that. This is a topic that necessitates emotional distance to even discuss, given the sheer weight of the subject.

 

[maninahat]

Most people eat meat, so if 6+ billion people are all one way, then they're not "Easy to offend" by definition, they're normal.

People on the majority can't be easy to offend by definition...

I think a few pages in your dictionary must have got stuck together.

So says you. If you want to see a majority of people get offended, just drop the word "Privilege" in a discussion.

 

[Dizchu]

I'm wondering how this thread might have gone if I were a meat eater and explicitly stated that.

 

[Aesir23]

Yes and no? When you have a group that numbers in the billions you're going to get people from all across the spectrum. Are some easy to offend? Yes. Are some of them assholes who will jump on someone just for mentioning they're vegetarian? Yes.

The reasons why can be somewhat interesting although some people do it just to be antagonistic and those guys are tend to be jerks regardless of their targets. However, you have to admit that vegetarians/vegans don't generally enjoy the most wonderful reputation with a lot of people, something that isn't helped by the fact that PETA was the face of vegetarianism for quite a number of years. In the case of quite a few overly aggressive meat-eaters I wouldn't be surprised if they were getting in a pre-emptive strike as a way to try and quickly shut up a potentially preachy vegan/vegetarian.

I'll admit that almost none of my experiences with vegans/vegetarians that I've met in-person have been positive. They were encounters that usually consisted of people approaching me while I was trying to eat in a communal setting in order to tell me about how I was a horrible person for what I ate, how people like me were why animals suffered, etc. It usually went on until I told them in no uncertain terms how little I cared about what they were saying to me at that moment.

Regardless, I'm logically aware that most vegans/vegetarians won't be preachy (since they also number in the millions to billions) so I've never tried to get in a "pre-emptive strike" or so nobody has made me aware. Unfortunately, the nature of the encounters I have had still cause me to get a bit wary and think "Here we go" when someone does mention they're vegetarian. It's something I'm trying to improve with but it still happens on occasion.

 

[Lightknight]

Okay before you accuse me of shoving my views down anyone's throats, this is not an argument about animal rights. As far as this thread goes, I don't care whether you eat animals or not.

We all know the jokes about vegans. "How do you know if someone's vegan? They'll tell you!" We've all seen the stereotype about vegans and vegetarians being smug, we've seen jokes at their expense because "we didn't get to the top of the food chain just to eat grass".

Interestingly though, I've found that meat eaters can be really easy to offend. I've seen many take criticisms of the meat industry very personally, which often results in lashing out. Accusations of aggression on the part of vegans, desperate proclamations of how "tough" they are or how humans have "evolved to eat meat". Because they are the majority group they tend to have a lot of support. Which just makes me wonder, if they have such strength in numbers and they honestly believe what they're doing is morally/ethically okay then why do they have such knee-jerk, emotional reactions?

Again, not judging meat eaters here. I'm just curious about why many of them are quick to get defensive if they're the vast majority.

Since only 8% of humans worldwide are vegetarians, you just made a comment that 92% of people are easily offended. (Fun fact, 84% of vegetarians and vegans go back to eating meat, 53% within the first year, which means there are actually 31% of vegetarians/vegans that actually make it more than a year without meat and then just go back to eating it. Makes you wonder what percentage of the remaining 16% are religious vegetarians that have external motivations to remain so compared to people who just have moral objections to the meat industry)

I haven't read the subsequent posts yet, but have you figured out yet that you just realized humans in general are easy to offend? We are evolved to care about what people say so we fit in with each other better. It is highly advantageous for us to care even if it can lead to embarrassment in the short term.

Society punishes people who stand out and behave contrary to the general society. Whether you like it or not, you are a minority as a vegetarian or vegan (Vegans are particularly ridiculed due to their avoidance of eggs and milk which do not harm animals if humanely obtained). The reason vegetarians or vegans are seen as particularly smug, is because many will frequently talk about their avoidance of meat as though they are better than the rest of society. You make a claim that the meant industry does X (not entirely true because some brands do X and some brands do not) and in doing so have instantly made the claim that you're doing what is right and the people you're speaking to are doing what is bad, ergo you are better (whether you intend to do this or not). That fits the definition of smug quite nicely even if you aren't particularly guilty of this yourself. "Meat eaters" don't think they're better, just that they're normal by definition which is technically true. This is why a commonly cited reason for vegetarians to go back to meat is a desire not to stand out.

Basically, people will get mad if you try to claim something they enjoy is wrong. Me personally, I want humane treatment for animals whenever viable but if we had to cause them to suffer for some reason then I would just consider it part of what has to happen to give us omnivores meat. No offense or care to be had at someone saying that the cows weep for a week before I get my steak. I mean, other animals hunt down their prey in the wild, terrifying them and then gnaw on their bodies until they die from blood loss. We go to great lengths to make the death as quick as possible with one blow to the brain. We've even learned how to organize the process in a way that doesn't terrify the cow (which has an added benefits of better tasting meat). The biggest concern now is living conditions while alive and this has spawned a major secondary free range market for a lot of meats just because we (meat eaters) care about that. If someone tries to guilt me because of what happens after the moment a cow gets a bullet to the brain then I'm going to laugh at them. Oh no, X happens to the lifeless corpse? Don't care, nothing is suffering. If you tell me that they're amputating limbs from animals to serve them fresh then I'm going to have a problem. Well... unless it's like SUPER delicious I guess... why is this making me want to try veal? [/joke]

Humanely procured meat does taste better (except in the case of veal) and is generally paid more for. There's an entire market for it that people objecting to the meat industry should be willing to support if their political beliefs were consistent.

 

[Lightknight]

I guess you got your answer, meat eaters are easy to be offended, just look at some posts here

Vegan is the future, only someone really blind can't see that, it's just a matter of time, I eat meat, simply because salmon and good steaks are really really good and I haven't eaten something vegan as good as those (tho since few people I know are vegan I barely try it), and I'm to lazy to learn how to cook vegan, but that's because how I grew in a society where eating meat is standard and now it's hard to let go of it, but naturally, the most responsible choice will prevail as times passes and eating meat will becomes rarer and rarer as time goes.

Help me out here, is this satire? If so, Poe's law is strong with this post.

The future is likely to be ethically harvested or even lab created meat. Most people have absolutely NO ethical quandary with the natural consumption of meat. The majority only have issues with inhumane treatment of food sources.

Vegan food wouldn't need to just get better, it would need to be able to replace the taste and texture and role of all other meat and would have to establish health benefits (believe it or not, but soy beans have their own range of hormonal health risks).

Here's a fun question for vegans and vegetarians. If labs created meat (and they already can) that tasted exactly as good as current market meat but was just formed in a lab as the muscle rather than having ever been a living creature, would they eat it? If not, why? Keep in mind that at this point it would functionally be like a meat plant had been created.

 

[Fallow]

The only group I've found that cannot be easily offended are of the post-humous variety.

Strangely though, the only place where I've found hyper-defensive carnivores is Slashdot.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I skimmed this thread a bit but I can't seem to find anywhere examples of meat-eating people being 'offended'. This is about the closest:

Are you telling me you've never seen a response like "mmm bacon is delicious" or "my food eats your food" when vegans say something publicly? I mean I suppose it's not something you see in open conversation often outside the internet, but look at any comments section on articles or videos that criticise the meat industry and you'll see this behaviour.

But that isn't being offended. Its just not. Its what we call in the UK "taking the piss". Its sardonicism directed at preachy Vegans. Its a wind-up.

I mean I'm seriously confused here. There's a difference between taking the piss out of someone and being offended by what they said. Do people not realise this?

 

[Silvanus]

Here's a fun question for vegans and vegetarians. If labs created meat (and they already can) that tasted exactly as good as current market meat but was just formed in a lab as the muscle rather than having ever been a living creature, would they eat it? If not, why? Keep in mind that at this point it would functionally be like a meat plant had been created.

Yes, absolutely. Suffering is my only concern.

In fact, it's not the eating of meat I have a problem with; its contributing to demand. When circumstances arise in which I can partake without doing so, I'm fine with that.

 

[Politrukk]

It's simple.

Vegans wish to convert others to also become vegan.


Those others are meat eaters.

People tend to take offence to obnoxious people trying to "educate" them the entire time.

I skimmed this thread a bit but I can't seem to find anywhere examples of meat-eating people being 'offended'. This is about the closest:

Are you telling me you've never seen a response like "mmm bacon is delicious" or "my food eats your food" when vegans say something publicly? I mean I suppose it's not something you see in open conversation often outside the internet, but look at any comments section on articles or videos that criticise the meat industry and you'll see this behaviour.

But that isn't being offended. Its just not. Its what we call in the UK "taking the piss". Its sardonicism directed at preachy Vegans. Its a wind-up.

I mean I'm seriously confused here. There's a difference between taking the piss out of someone and being offended by what they said. Do people not realise this?

no they don't sadly

 

[Lightknight]

Here's a fun question for vegans and vegetarians. If labs created meat (and they already can) that tasted exactly as good as current market meat but was just formed in a lab as the muscle rather than having ever been a living creature, would they eat it? If not, why? Keep in mind that at this point it would functionally be like a meat plant had been created.

Yes, absolutely. Suffering is my only concern.

In fact, it's not the eating of meat I have a problem with; its contributing to demand. When circumstances arise in which I can partake without doing so, I'm fine with that.

So then, how do you feel about meat specifically harvested ethically? There is a demand for this and you can likely find it in local stores. Cows that were actually allowed to roam farm land and graze who also were also killed quickly and humanely.

If you could know that's how your meat was acquired, could you eat it?

 

[Cycloptomese]

I take a different stance as a meat eater. I strongly encourage every person to become a vegan/vegetarian or whatever. That means more meat for me!