Decolonizing Veganism - Stage green cringe

[enchanted]

While everything they say is mostly true the speakers are the most stereotypical stage green examples I've every seen. It's worth watching for cringe and also the good information about cultures. It helps me understand my siblings who are all vegans, anti white, anti colonial, feminist, anti capitalist, social activists.

The one speaker actually starts his speech by apologizing that he is a white male 😂

Or am I wrong and these people actually stage yellow? Would love to hear your thoughts. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:27 PM by enchanted

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

I think there is no problem with veganism, feminism or social activism (I do have problems with all the other ones tho lol), the problem is the collectivist thinking underpinning these ideologies. Thinking in and identifying yourself and others in terms of groups, it's always my group vs. your group. This group oppresses me (or if you are a masochist like that white guy in the video, I am part of the opressor group). That is not to say that this thinking in terms of groups is something avoidable, it clearly is not. However, I think it is possible to minimize it as much as possible

If you are ideological you are automatically collectivist

Edited Tuesday at 04:39 PM by NewKidOnTheBlock

[enchanted]

8 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

I think there is no problem with veganism, feminism or social activism (I do have problems with all the other ones tho lol), the problem is the collectivist thinking underpinning these ideologies. Thinking in and identifying yourself and others in terms of groups, it's always my group vs. your group. This group oppresses me (or if you are a masochist like that white guy in the video, I am part of the opressor group). That is not to say that this thinking in terms of groups is something avoidable, it clearly is not. However, I think it is possible to minimize it as much as possible

If you are ideological you are automatically collectivist

That's a great point. And I also agree 100% with the speakers in the video. It's just fun to watch stage green tie itslef into knots to try and be multicultural and not oppressive. They have clearly made a shadow of  "white colonialist" aka "the white devil". But if multiculturalism/post modernism is true then "white colonial" is just another valid perspective with lots of advantages and disadvantages.

I think the presents are way ahead of their time (compared to the average person) but I'm glad they are trying to awaken the species to higher values and greater consciousness. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:47 PM by enchanted

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, enchanted said:

The one speaker actually starts his speech by apologizing that he is a white male 😂

I'm far from being pro-vegan, but there are plenty of normal or even conservative vegans.

I like Vegan Gains on youtube.

Generally, a person is a people pleaser because it project its infantile narcissism onto others; a certain category of people, particularly on the far left indeed, are hysterical narcissists to whom you can't say anything and who project this onto "minorities".

Edited Tuesday at 05:02 PM by Schizophonia

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

18 minutes ago, enchanted said:

That's a great point. And I also agree 100% with the speakers in the video. It's just fun to watch stage green tie itslef into knots to try and be multicultural and not oppressive. They have clearly made a shadow of  "white colonialist" aka "the white devil". But if multiculturalism/post modernism is true then "white colonial" is just another valid perspective with lots of advantages and disadvantages.

I think the presents are way ahead of their time (compared to the average person) but I'm glad they are trying to awaken the species to higher values and greater consciousness. 

Agreeing 100% with them is a bit rich lol this whole putting of blame on white people is kinda cringe and I don't agree with that, granted I haven't watched the video but I don't think I need to in order to know how these people think

[carterfelder]

"The problem with white abolition of human slavery."

[Emerald]

I personally hold the perspective that it's unethical to eat animal products if you don't need to consume animal products to survive, which is why I am Vegan. And I hold that it's okay to prioritize human life over animal life in cases of food insecurity and/or life and death survival.

And that's not because I believe that humans are hierarchically more important than animals (as I reject the notion of human supremacy and the notion of a hierarchy of importance within nature). But I see it as ethically okay for every animal (including humans) to prioritize the survival of members of its own species. I apply the same standards to humans and animals alike, as I think humans believing themselves to be superior is responsible for so much disharmony humans have with nature.

So, I see it as ethical to eat animals if that's all that's available, for the sake of survival. But I don't believe it's ethical to place human creature comforts or even cherished human folkways (no matter how cherished) over an animal's survival.

So, even the idea that the importance of preserving human cultural practices trumps the importance of an animal's life comes from a human supremacist mindset where the suffering of animals is okay to inflict for the sake of maintaining something that's important to humans but isn't a life or death matter. 

I can sympathize that having cultural practices that one values which involve eating and using animal products makes it more difficult to go Vegan. It does make it more difficult. And I have no judgment of the person in question for not going Vegan, because most people aren't going Vegan anyway... but for simple creature comforts and pleasure-seeking, which is much less important that cultural practices.

But I think it's important to be consistent with the ethical principle that 'while humans can prioritize other humans' survival over animals' survival as it is every type of animal's right to prioritize members of their own species, it's still unethical to harm/kill an animal for any other non-survival-based reason.'

So, if a person is food insecure and they have to eat whatever food is available, I see that as consuming animal products to survive. And I don't see it as unethical. With food insecurity, the focus has to about eating... and not what is being eaten.

I also think it's ethically fine if someone lives in an environment where the only food available to them is animal products. Like the Inuit people who live in the arctic mostly have access to whale and other sea creatures.

But I can have empathy for people who choose not to go Vegan... even though I still see it as an unethical choice.

I have empathy for what the woman described where, to her mom who was poor and couldn't afford to eat meat, that she decides that she's going to eat whatever she wants. In my opinion, it's still not ethical, as it causes unnecessary death and suffering for the animals for the sake of human creature comforts and prioritizes human comfort over animal lives. But I can understand why that would be a choice someone would make. And because most people aren't Vegan for much less important reasons, someone in that position wouldn't be a target audience for Vegan activism... if I were to engage in Vegan activism (which I don't).

And as I mentioned before, it's also understandable that it might be extra difficult for someone to go Vegan if they have a cultural background that involves eating meat. I still think it's unethical because it is consuming animals for a reason that isn't survival. But it's also easy to empathize with, and they wouldn't be a primary target audience for my Vegan activism... if I were a Vegan activist.

The actual target audience for my Vegan activism (if I were to be one), would be people who live in wealthier nations without strong cultural practices who have enough money to choose what they eat and who only eat animals for pleasure and out of habit.

Vegans are currently 1% of the population... and a stretch goal would be to get that percentage to 2%. So, a Vegan activist needn't focus their attention on people who aren't Vegan because of their connection to animal product-based cultural practices.

They could just focus solely on the 90%+ of non-Vegans who simply eat animal products for pleasure. And the 'problem' of "Veganism encroaching upon cultural practices" is solved.

But beyond direct Vegan activism, ethical consistency is also important... and intellectual honesty is even more important because of all the cognitive dissonance surrounding meat and dairy consumption

And I notice that the culture argument is often used as a cop out because people fundamentally don't want to see themselves as unethical or oppressive for eating animals products. They want to come up with some justification that makes those actions square with their own code of ethics... when they don't for many people.

That's especially true for compassionate people who care about animals and who support causes that aim to end the oppression of marginalized groups. It would be really difficult for this type of person to look squarely at their meat-eating behavior and see the mindsets of the oppressor within themselves. 

And people get upset when Vegans compare the human oppression of animals to human-to-human oppression because people don't like to acknowledge their own oppressive ways... and the similarities in the mindsets of the oppressing parties.

The stories human beings tell themselves about why they're superior to animals and entitled to exploit animals for their own gain are the same kinds of stories that human being have told themselves to justify the exploitation of other humans.

So, instead of acknowledging one's own oppressive ways, it's easier to turn that guilt back around towards Vegans and be like, "I'm not a bad for exploiting animals. You're bad for comparing people who oppress/exploit animals to people who oppress/exploit humans."

But that's too honest and wouldn't sufficiently quell the cognitive dissonance. So, they say, "Shame on you Vegans for comparing marginalized groups to animals!"

So, culture is commonly used for people to try to invalidate Veganism as something oppressive... to make Veganism unethical and to make meat-eating ethical. It basically just becomes another defense to hide the ethical incongruence from themselves.

But truthfully, most of the people who make the "Veganism encroaches upon culture" argument, don't even care about culture. Most belong to "people who eat meat for pleasure" group.  It's just a cudgel to use to quell cognitive dissonance as it pertains to Veganism.

I once heard this white lady arguing with Earthling Ed (a popular Vegan activist) making all sorts of cultural claims about indigenous hunting practices as a justification for why she eats meat and dairy that she purchases from the grocery store that were produced in factory farms. And it was just her bullshitting herself to quell the cognitive dissonance.... only using a cursory knowledge of a particular Native American tribe's cultural story to hide herself from herself. And he rightly called it out as appropriating another culture for the sake of justifying her own support of factory farming.

Edited yesterday at 07:28 AM by Emerald

[OmniNaut]

17 hours ago, enchanted said:

Or am I wrong and these people actually stage yellow? Would love to hear your thoughts. 

No this is still stage Green, everything she doesn't agree with is called White veganism. (Which is such a weird term for me, but okay). She considers Israeli people also white. It really depends how you want to group it.

She is in my eyes not SD yellow but still green. She is still fighting against, instead of transcending and including. The term white veganism has some racist tendencies to it, which she is exploiting, coming from a Mexican background. 

Me as a white guy, (should I be apologizing now?) lived in different parts of Asia, also there Vegetarian or Veganism is not often a choice but a necessity, because of poverty or environment, in the Himalayas room for herding cows, sheep etc. is limited.
I'm well aware of the impact colonisation had on different parts of the world. It shaped a lot of cultures to the point that we don't know what the cultures would look like without the colonisation.

I think this (white veganism) is mainly a US thing, In Europe this is not a big problem. Yes some people can't understand why people are vegan and some people have a problem with it. But nothing to the degree like I see in the US.

Wow, The apologizing this guy has to do because he's white when he comes up to the stage.

The NPO, in my eyes as the guy describes it is still considered SD Green, nothing wrong with that. I like the idea and the work (from what he describes), and he is trying to be open to more ideas. So maybe some SD Yellow elements, but it's still rooted firmly in SD green.

[OmniNaut]

Why is this term white veganism, it gives such a loaded emotion to conversation before the conservation even started. 

It's a bit of a rhetorical question I understand what the term means (same like the white guilt term that was used 10-15 years ago)  but OMG, putting racism and colonisation in this and categorising every vegan like that is astounding. This is Toxic SD Green at it's best.

BTW I myself am vegetarian for 13 years now. I started Vegan, after a few months I switched to Vegetarian, that suited my body better. 
I mind my own business, I do this for myself, sure I see the nature destruction and animal cruelty around me.

All my relationships were with non-vegan/vegetarians. I don't mind, the only rule is for myself I don't cook meat or fish, that you have to yourself.

 

BTW 2:
The girl from the video is (conveniently?) forgetting another important Vegan group. It's the SD Orange Vegans. Vegans because of their body, not the environment or animal cruelty. One of the most famous sporters is Lewis Hamilton, big advocate of Veganism, and surprise..... He's black.

[carterfelder]

“Even if you think that any and all human rights issues are more important than the issue of animal exploitation, you have to eat while you are fighting for those great causes. How does eating, for example, tofu instead of steak impede your ability to fight for human rights causes? It doesn’t. If anything, a healthy vegan diet will give you more energy to pursue those causes.” - Gary L. Francione

[Lyubov]

The kind of perspective she has is far too advanced and idealistic for the average person. The average trumper will say she should be deported and how they conquered her land so they can do what they want. While she is kinda cringe, keep in mind stage orange and blue are abhorrently violent and dishonest people. Her issue is she has a standard for how she thinks reality should be but reality doesn’t align with her beliefs.  

Edited 22 hours ago by Lyubov

[aurum]

On 10/28/2025 at 6:25 AM, enchanted said:

Or am I wrong and these people actually stage yellow?

Nah this is as Green as it gets.

 

[Schizophonia]

@Emerald You talk like a Cathar; if you're talking about ethics it's because you're a religious person, otherwise it's just low-key your superego that you're trying to globalize for certain reasons.

Yes eating meat because it tastes good is relevant; if veganism is not good and also tends to cause various cognitive and/or digestive problems depending on the person, then it is not in our interest.

Most farm animals live decent lives ;manure is also by far the most widely used type of fertilizer, so I don't know why you think this is one of the most "ethical" things to do.

From the outside, it looks more like neurosis, and when I see how vegans tend to use very religious terminology, even when they claim to be atheists, it reinforces that idea.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

@Emerald You talk like a Cathar; if you're talking about ethics it's because you're a religious person, otherwise it's just low-key your superego that you're trying to globalize for certain reasons.

Yes eating meat because it tastes good is relevant; if veganism is not good and also tends to cause various cognitive and/or digestive problems depending on the person, then it is not in our interest.

Most farm animals live decent lives ;manure is also by far the most widely used type of fertilizer, so I don't know why you think this is one of the most "ethical" things to do.

From the outside, it looks more like neurosis, and when I see how vegans tend to use very religious terminology, even when they claim to be atheists, it reinforces that idea.

In case there was any confusion, I'm not an atheist.

But ethics isn't specifically the domain of religious people. There can be atheists that operate very ethically. And there can be religious people who operate unethically.

So, the intellectual belief in God is ethically neutral... even if morality tends to be a component within religious schools of thought.

But ethics is a consideration that every single person must make to stay in integrity with their own ethical compass.

And those who don't consider the question of ethics will inevitably breech their own ethical boundaries. And this makes them have to hide these boundary breeches from themselves and make them unconscious to maintain the status quo of their worldview and self-concept... as ethical boundary breeches (even unconscious ones) tend to disturb a universally held human identity of being "the good one" or "the right one".

So, operating outside the bounds of one's ethical compass requires oneself to go unconscious and go into cognitive dissonance to hide one's own ethical boundary breaches from one's self... in order to protect the identity of rightness.

And at that point, one must twist their mind into all kinds of pretzels and knots to justify their own actions to themselves.... which gives a strong incentive to build a very shoddy clunker of an epistemology. So, tuning out from our ethical compass incentivizes us to build a very weak intellectual framework.

That is why you find such mental gymnastics around the topic of Veganism... and it's even more intense with non-Vegan Stage Green types.

These non-Vegan Stage Green types are very against exploitation... and are aware enough to recognize the exploitative nature of the relationship humans have with animals. And yet, they still partake in consuming animal products for pleasure.

So, they have to twist their minds in knots to hide this ugly truth from themselves about their own oppressive, exploitative nature... and it ruins their epistemological integrity.

And the stronger the indictment that non-Vegan Stage Green people have towards oppressors and the more they see oppressors as "the evil one" in other contexts, the stronger they will go into cognitive dissonance and fall into unconsciousness around the hand they play in oppression and exploitation of animals.

[enchanted]

17 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

She is still fighting against, instead of transcending and including. The term white veganism has some racist tendencies to it,  

Wow, The apologizing this guy has to do because he's white when he comes up to the stage.

 

Great point! You really clarified this topic for me @OmniNautyou really know SD well. 

Yes the apologizing is almost unbelievable 

[enchanted]

17 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

Why is this term white veganism, it gives such a loaded emotion to conversation before the conservation even started. 
 

Another great point. All your points are really good. Thanks for taking the time to analyse this video.

Clearly SD is a helpful way to see the world.

Edited 13 hours ago by enchanted

[enchanted]

20 hours ago, Emerald said:

 intellectual honesty is even more important because of all the cognitive dissonance surrounding meat and dairy consumption

 

So true. It's really hard to justify eating meat. I wonder in the future if the progressives will take down statues of famous people because they are meat. (Similar to how they do that with slave owners today!)

You are very good at articulating your thoughts in general. Are you an author or something? You are very impressive. 

[Emerald]

Just now, enchanted said:

So true. It's really hard to justify eating meat. I wonder in the future if the progressives will take down statues of famous people because they are meat. (Similar to how they do that with slave owners today!)

You are very good at articulating your thoughts in general. Are you an author or something? You are very impressive. 

Thank you! I have a YouTube channel and I've been making videos for 10 years. So, that probably has something to do with it.

But I don't think that future generations will look back at meat eaters in the same light as slave owners. There might carry some stigma once society switches to lab meat and adopts a Vegan philosophy, but nowhere near on the same level as the stigma towards slave owners... as meat-eating is a more indirect evil.

Plus, animals will NEVER be able to speak out about past mistreatment in the way that marginalized human groups can. So, I doubt that the taboo against eating meat in a hypothetical future post-factory-farming world would ever grow very strong, as animals can't call us out on our bs.

Also eating meat and dairy isn't exactly analogous to owning slaves... as the former is a more passive consumption and the violence happens inside factory farms that the consumer never needs to think of, while slave ownership must use an active threat of violence to maintain an ever-present power imbalance day in and day out.

Eating meat and dairy today is more equivalent to purchasing products from companies that employ human slaves back then... and like we still do with buying clothing from sweatshops.

To make it truly analogous, owning a personal farm and slaughtering one's own animals for personal consumption OR owning a factory farm that slaughters animals for profit would be what's actually analogous to slave ownership.

And most meat eaters don't slaughter the animals themselves. They just give their money to companies that slaughter animals.

So, in the same way that people who purchased items from companies that employed slaves aren't highly stigmatized in the way slave owners are... I don't think people who purchase animal products will be stigmatized but that family farm and factory farm owners will be.

[OmniNaut]

This white veganism thing is basically SD Green canabilising (plant or meat based haha) itself (oh the irony). Turning two SD Green ideologies against each other. They make it about race and privilege while claiming to be anti race and privilege. It's almost laughable.

This is why SD Green is still tier 1. They don't see or understand the contradicting believes within their own colour.

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

In case there was any confusion, I'm not an atheist.

But ethics isn't specifically the domain of religious people. There can be atheists that operate very ethically. And there can be religious people who operate unethically.

You refer to ethics as an objective criterion; if it's objective, then it must exist somewhere.

So either it's a theological bias—it's written in a sacred book/one you believe in—or it actually just comes from your imagination and is probably just a reflex to generalize your superego, given that it's partly unconscious.

Hence the fact that "atheists" who claim to be ethical will say something like, "It's something obvious deep down in each of us", well no, it's not universally obvious; it's just the projection of your own superego and, by extension, the ideas of your collective unconscious. Hence the fact that some cultures (Northern European and Anglo-Saxon countries, Hindus, etc.) have a higher prevalence of veganism regardless of social conditions.

Quote

So, the intellectual belief in God is ethically neutral... even if morality tends to be a component within religious schools of thought.

But ethics is a consideration that every single person must make to stay in integrity with their own ethical compass.

Even if you're not religious, if you don't go to church, etc., you have mental structures influenced by religion, and you generalize from that.

Besides, Jung said that Europeans/white people are essentially Christian whether they like it or not, because it's ingrained in the collective unconscious.

I don't have a moral compass; I don't think in those terms, at least not as much as you and others.

It seems so.

Quote

And those who don't consider the question of ethics will inevitably breech their own ethical boundaries. And this makes them have to hide these boundary breeches from themselves and make them unconscious to maintain the status quo of their worldview and self-concept... as ethical boundary breeches (even unconscious ones) tend to disturb a universally held human identity of being "the good one" or "the right one".

You are dismissing the solution of aligning the conscious with the unconscious.

That is to say, the possibility that your moral compass is faulty.

Quote

So, operating outside the bounds of one's ethical compass requires oneself to go unconscious and go into cognitive dissonance to hide one's own ethical boundary breaches from one's self... in order to protect the identity of rightness.

No, your moral compass is both conscious and unconscious (the unconscious part is precisely what motivates globalization under idealistic or even religious language such as "ethics" or "morality"), and your instinctual desires are fundamentally unconscious.
Your conflict, on the contrary, is a confrontation between what you have learned, the legacy of your upbringing and the collective unconscious, as I said earlier, which are more or less conscious, and your atavistic desires.

I mentioned neurosis somewhere because, without going into the psychoanalytic genesis of the phenomenon—that's not the point—the more neurotic a person is (we all are to some extent), the more they tend to go against their id as if it were good, a right thing, something worthwhile.

Quote

And at that point, one must twist their mind into all kinds of pretzels and knots to justify their own actions to themselves.... which gives a strong incentive to build a very shoddy clunker of an epistemology. So, tuning out from our ethical compass incentivizes us to build a very weak intellectual framework.

That is why you find such mental gymnastics around the topic of Veganism... and it's even more intense with non-Vegan Stage Green types.

These non-Vegan Stage Green types are very against exploitation... and are aware enough to recognize the exploitative nature of the relationship humans have with animals. And yet, they still partake in consuming animal products for pleasure.

Everyone exploits everyone else, even when you think you're in love with your boyfriend it's low-key energy business.

As I've said elsewhere, even adopting your idealistic paradigm, yes, there are particularly unethical production chains, but they're a minority.
Where I live, there's a lot of free-range cattle and chicken farming; many people also keep chickens because it's easy. These animals shouldn't live because they're "exploited"? That's delusional.

Most vegans are indeed urban white people who constantly exploit others through their lifestyle; most of your gadgets were produced through exploitation, and not good exploitation at that.
When you buy a smartphone, you're buying something from a company (Foxconn) that have suicide nets in their gigantic factories.

Why is living a relatively peaceful life outdoors, safe from predators and hunger, before being quickly killed with a bullet to the head to feed people directly or indirectly (through manure), considered wrong? Like, why would that be "wrong"? Especially if, without getting into any of that nonsense, you don't particularly care about other humans.

Quote

So, they have to twist their minds in knots to hide this ugly truth from themselves about their own oppressive, exploitative nature... and it ruins their epistemological integrity.

And the stronger the indictment that non-Vegan Stage Green people have towards oppressors and the more they see oppressors as "the evil one" in other contexts, the stronger they will go into cognitive dissonance and fall into unconsciousness around the hand they play in oppression and exploitation of animals.

 

It's a strange delirium; the whole of life is exploitation and power dynamics.

It's not ugly, it's just nature; what's ugly is hurting yourself and becoming hostile to others because you're living in a delirium.

Edited 3 hours ago by Schizophonia