inactive

May I present the best apple:

If a person can’t get out of bed, something is making them exhausted. If a student isn’t writing papers, there’s some aspect of the assignment that they can’t do without help. If an employee misses deadlines constantly, something is making organization and deadline-meeting difficult. Even if a person is actively choosing to self-sabotage, there’s a reason for it — some fear they’re working through, some need not being met, a lack of self-esteem being expressed.

People do not choose to fail or disappoint. No one wants to feel incapable, apathetic, or ineffective. If you look at a person’s action (or inaction) and see only laziness, you are missing key details. There is always an explanation. There are always barriers. Just because you can’t see them, or don’t view them as legitimate, doesn’t mean they’re not there. Look harder.

I'd say something like this:

I can understand treating veganism as it is just a diet, since that is how it is almost always discussed in media and online. Veganism has a dietary component, but that isn't all that veganism is. The Vegan Society definition that I have outlined is almost universally accepted definition by vegans themselves, and one of the founders of the Vegan Society who provides that definition is the person who coined the term in the first place.

Wouldn't we know best how to describe our own belief system? I really don't think it is your place to define a belief system on behalf of a community that you don't belong to. You, a non-vegan, are telling me as a vegan, what veganism is. Does that not sound a bit presumptious to you?

I am sure it isn't intentional, but by insisting on this extremely narrow definition, you are erasing thousands of disabled vegans all over the world, who may not be able to survive on a completely plant-based diet, but are tired of being told that they're not real vegans by people who aren't even trying to be vegan themselves. By defining veganism in this way, you are, intentionally or not, explicitly excluding anyone who can't adopt a plant-based diet from being able to call themselves vegan.

It feels like a catch 22 here, because people trash veganism for not being inclusive enough, but when we tell you what the inclusive definition of veganism is, you respond by saying: "Well that isn't what veganism means." We are trying to be inclusive with a definition that can be owned by anyone who is doing their best to avoid animal exploitation, but you and people like you are insisting that isn't real veganism... Which feels counterproductive if you actually care about inclusivity and accessibility more than having some easy ammunition to use against vegans.

So do you want veganism to be inclusive, or not? If you actually care about this issue and want veganism to be more inclusive, then you should encourage people to define it in a way that can include disabled vegans who are not able to completely take on the dietary component.

"Veganism is anti-Indigenous" is a talking point non-Indigenous people use to avoid accountability, and it's literally the noble savage trope. It assumes we all hunt and fish, erasing Indigenous vegans, plant-based traditions, AND the fact that the meat and dairy industry is actively destroying Indigenous lands, waters, and food systems. Using us as a shield while buying your meat from the grocery store is tokenism. We're not your excuse.

Tiktok post by @ hiililylani (she/her).

in honour of bettel's great battle with pomni, i edited this in a fit of madness. tadc fans, you were a worthy opponent!! o7

song: the one who's running the show (from the amazing digital circus)

come check out this silly jester some time :)