this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
210 points (94.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38359 readers
1853 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For me it's saying, "we can't joke about anything anymore". Sirens go off immediately 🚨

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use "carnist" pretty regularly. "Carnist" either means supporting carnism ("carnist rhetoric") or someone who subscribes to it ("a carnist"), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):

The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).

By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an "omnivore" or "omni". This will vary by person, but "carnist" will be used over "omnivore" when the person isn't just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.

It's a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it's stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a "carnist", and has been big mad ever since.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've seen it used here on Lemmy in aggressive comments, and I filed it as an extremist slur. It's not just Kolanaki.

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Same here. I've never seen it in the real world.

[–] M137@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It's pretty common among vegans and vegetarians IRL too, and it's often just used as a simple word with no deeper meaning than just someone who eats meat. Like "hey, X is coming to dinner next week, they're a carnist though so we gotta make something that they'd like".

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

I've never heard it as a vegan with a couple vegan friends, only by some very angry people on lemmy. I just say he's is/is not vegetarian and that's descriptive enough.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I also find "carnist" to be sort of a try-hard word in regular use, but the other part that SHOULD be said is that choosing to use it is useful for perspective switching. Typically being vegan or vegetarian is a minority position so the language in general basically normalizes omni eating habits. "Carnist" as a turn of phrase makes it possible to shift "normal" to more closely match veganism.

Edit: You basically said this deeper in the thread, oops. Still I'll leave it because maybe more people will see it.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago

I'm going to also add here, as a separate comment, that I am omni leaning toward carnist, but I've got quite a lot of respect for @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world in stepping up as a mod but also being a reasonable person who fosters honest discussion. Not my first +1, but I'm always happy to give it!

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

It's been a while since I've encountered it, which is why I wasn't totally sure of the usage

But anecdotally, the handful of times I have seen the term in the wild, it was always from someone inserting themselves into a conversation where obviously people aren't going to be open to hearing about veganism.

Like if they hopped into a thread about, for example, a BBQ or hunting forum, and started berating people for eating meat, and when they get told to pound sand, they go off about how that's "typical carnist behavior" or something.

Which I think you can probably agree is pretty CHUD-y

Not saying that's how it's used in regular vegan circles, but that's how I've personally seen used it as a non-vegan

[–] subignition@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think it is probably because it gets used in a way where it takes on a slur-like connotation. It feels a bit complicated to this onlooker; vegan and non-vegan would seem like adequate terms at first glance, but because "vegan" is overloaded (it's both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same) it feels a bit lacking.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same

Actually, in circles where "carnist" would be used, "vegan" has a very clear distinction, and it's the latter. Whether they've seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society's definition*:

Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don't use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Somebody who's solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: "plant-based". The reason "carnist" is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the "omnivore" and "carnist" terms come in.

"Carnism" makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply "vegan or non-vegan" places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of "us or non-us". Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.


* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wouldn't you want to use "vegan" to describe the diet and "veganist" to describe the ideology, then?

"Carnism" makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply "vegan or non-vegan" places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of "us or non-us". Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.

Having a word for "non-us" doesn't really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an "us vs. them" way, though... and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)

I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn't widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It's kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.

They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?

No; "veganism" is the ideology, and a "vegan" is someone who practices it. Having "vegan" and "veganist" solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the "dietary" part as an afterthought.

Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…

Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name ("carnism") positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.

It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.

If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. "liberal" instead of "non-communist". Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse "liberal" with "hippie-dippie progressive", but that doesn't stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).

that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles

The "vegan" versus "plant-based" thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren't going to completely shed a collective label they've used for decades; they'll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they've been doing a fine job of. It's not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that "plant-based = vegan" dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than "let's jump ship to another brand (even one that's near-identical enough to be more confusing)".

As for "carnism", okay? That's just something you can look up; there's a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I'll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using "liberal" because some people are confused.

But realistically, I don't think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.