After reading some discussion on lemmygrad about veganism, I felt the need to share my thoughts in a separate thread, as comments weren't appropriate for the wall of text I'm about to throw.

Before we start, very important precision. This is not about environmental veganism, only about animal-liberation veganism. Consuming less animal products will be a lifestyle change we must anticipate to limit environmental destruction. This is about the moral philosophy of veganism and its contradictions with materialism.

Intro

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

Now, I must say, if one is to contest the validity of this syllogism as a basis for veganism I encourage them to provide one since it could drastically change my point of view.

Like many syllogisms, there is appeal and validity to it until you question the premises. Let's review them under a materialistic lens.

Morality and materialism

The first premise is that it is immortal to kill and exploit humans. As leftists, we tend to wholeheartedly agree with such a statement, as it encapsulates our ambitions and dreams, however this cannot be pursued for a political manifest beyond utopian wishful thinking. Historically, killing has been justified as a high moral act whenever the one being killed was deemed worthy of death. The reason it is generally considered immoral to interrupt one's life is because humans simply have to collaborate to survive, therefore every society has developed a social construct that allows us to live as a social productive species. But whenever a war enemy, criminal, or dissident person is being killed under certain circumstances, the killing becomes justified, morally right.

As materialists, we don't base our interpretation of morality on a notion of some metaphysical, reality-transcending rule, and even less in relation to an afterlife. Morality is a human construct that evolves with material conditions. In that case, the relationship of human morality with non-human animals becomes more complicated than it seems. Humans do have empathy for other species but are also able to consume their flesh and products, a contradiction that has defined the construction of morality around non-human animals through history. This explains why it seems desirable for a lot of people to stop unnecessary animal cruelty while still wanting to consume their flesh, there is an act of balancing between empathy and appetite.

Equality of species and violence

Now you might have noticed that this framework is definitely human-centric. That brings us to the second premise, which is the equality of all species. By all means, it is absolutely outdated to maintain the idea of "human superiority" on all non-human species in the current times. As materialists, we should realise that humans evolved at the same time as other species, are dependent on the ecosystem, and that there is no fundamental variable that we have to consider as a criteria for ranking in an abstract "order of things".

That said, the equality of all species doesn't automatically mean the disappearance of inter-species violence. Firstly, we cannot stop unnecessary violence between fellow living beings that don't share our means of communication (unless we exerce physical control over them, but that's even worse). Secondly, there is an assumption that only humans possess the ability to choose to follow a vegan diet, which is extremely strange considering that it makes humans the only specie to have the capacity to be moral. Either non-human animals are excused for their chauvinistic violence against other species because they are seen as too limited, determined by their instinct, but it makes humans actually morally superior to other species. Or the animals must be held accountable for inter-species violence, which no vegan upholds, thankfully. Last option would be to consider that inter-species violence is part of life, which I agree with and think is the materialistic approach, but that means there is no reason to adopt a vegan diet.

Conclusion

So what does that let us with? Morality being a social construct with a material use in a human society, and humans being fundamentally empathetic, it is completely understandable that society will be progressing towards diminishing meat consumption to allow the minimization of animal suffering. But the exploitation of animals as means of food production doesn't have a materialistic reason to go away (unless we're talking about climate change, of course). The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other.

This is mostly why I would discourage pushing people to abandon all animal products in the name of ethics. What should be encouraged is acceptance of every specific diet, be it religious diets, or animal-liberation diets. Strict vegetarianism must be a choice of heart that is based on profound empathy, not a superior moral choice or, worse, a moral imperative.

This is plain irrational, people are buying this game at a faster pace than ever despite this shit costing 70$, but still charging up to 28$ for one single cosmetic set exclusive to a fucking cash shop, plus a fucking battle-pass. I've never been a fan of the series in fact I never played Diablo III so I can't relate but still, Blizzard got into the brain of their clients with this shit it's just fucked up. It's not rational, consumerism at this level can't just be a trick that is played on their brains by clever marketing teams, it's deeper than that. People are being broken, their wits have been altered. There is something about impulse control that was removed from their abilities. No ableism intended, people with disorders need respect and care. I think that capitalism is responsible for damaging people mentally, those people are victims and need help.

End of rant.

I had this reflection when discussing the subject of trans people participating in mass media beauty contest, with in mind the Miss Universe contest. This question is your typical imperial core opinion divider : a useless debate between two tendencies of the bourgeoisie.

The truth is, there is no question whether or not trans women would be allowed to run because in fact this contest goes against everything the feminist and LGBT+ liberation movement is for.

Historically, beauty competition were used at the height of society to match the most desirable women (matching body standards, pretty, but also witty and talented, but always docile, just like in the Misses contest) with the most powerful men. There would be "seasons" organised with dances and other events for the young men and women to socialise. When a men desired a young woman he would ask her father if his rank was high enough for him, and if the father thought his daughter might get better he could refuse. The life of the daughter was being gambled for prestige. The daughter was a transactional resource.

The criterias of desirability haven't changed, objectification by quantifying their quality as individuals, physical and mental, is still the same. The ranking and comparaison, an assignment to an absolute, comparable and fungible value is still there. Miss Universe is in historical continuity of the practice, which explains why culturally no one cares about Mister Universe. Men don't have to be judged and standardized, men objectification exists but as a curiosity, something just for fun. For women it's part of their condition.

The LGBT+ and feminist liberation movement stand against this standardisation. The beauty contest ought to be replaced by something that actually already exists: the pride parade. The pride parade is massive, inclusive, doesn't rank anyone, it just shows forms of beauty without judgement. The beauty contest is the bourgeois way of celebrating human beauty, by transforming standardized individuals into commodities with an assigned value. The pride parade celebrates beauty in its diversity, and provides intrinsic, non-fungible and incomparable value to individuals while including them in the mass instead of putting them above.

Therefore the pride parade is proletarian, it is a manifestation of mass, a resistance against bourgeois historical values and practices. It is the proletarian way of celebrating beauty.

The imperial core has some strong color revolution fantasies, but at the same time it is hard to dismiss something that isn't just "freedumb and democracy". The whole thing around Iranian women specifically, looks like a hijacking of a legitimate struggle. Has anyone produced an informed analysis of the situation?

Relative was talking about ethical branding (lol) and said "at least the clothes are not made by "Hoorghoors" I kid you not lmao

I've read a lot of comments on our communities pointing the fact that western powers have refused the Soviet proposal to unite against Germany and that they all signed diverse pacts before the, now overplayed, German-Soviet pact. Although those comments never had a source to back that claim, and obviously search engines would never find this for me. Anyone know where I can find about all of this?

Most based stuff I've heard in a long time, absolute must watch

I just realized they are calling themselves a socialist republic, and I've seen parades with communist iconography posted on Lemmygrad. Despite this, the most inclusive list of AES countries I've seen is Cuba China DPRK Vietnam Laos, never including Sri Lanka. Why is that?