An issue with boycotts in general is that people are constantly talking about what not to do and not what to do alternatively or the specifics on how to get there. Eventually it makes you realize that literally anything you do will cause someone to get genocided or abused somewhere, and when they way out isn’t clear or straightforward, now you’re overwhelmed with thousands of things you hate that you do and have to figure out how to change on your own one by one, and those changes result in new problems that overwhelm you or turn out to also be unethical and you have to change them yet again. And in the end you hate yourself because your change attempts made you miserable while you’re still doing doing harmful things and other people hate you because you’re still causing genocides and the rest think you’re an idiot or a hypocrite for trying at all, while meanwhile everyone else around you is just enjoying themselves and not giving a fuck, and you’ll always be a terrible person anyways so you might as well give up.
I think if more people instead of saying “don’t do this” instead said “do this instead” when they talked about what to boycott and why, that would help with harm reduction a lot more.
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 it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
It is practically a boycott though, since a purpose of a boycott is to avoid something that is unethical. With veganism you’re refusing to purchase (or obtain in other ways, but 99% of people purchase) products that involve animal exploitation. For BDS you’re refusing to purchase products that involve Palestinian exploitation. For most others you’re refusing to purchase products that involve other forms of human exploitation like slave labor, like with the chocolate industry, battery mining, sweatshops, etc. (Nestle being a common example)
At best, a boycott is part of veganism. Vegans obviously also don’t personally kill animals to eat, or kick puppies, or have cock fights. Not supporting those things financially is a consequence of that stance, not it’s sole purpose.
The reason it seems like a boycott is simply because for the average city dweller, buying animal products is simply the main way they interact with this form of oppression.
To try an analogy: Imagine most/all men actually not assaulting or raping women. But, 99% of them pay for others to do that on their behalf, three times a day. Feminism would look a lot like “just a boycott” to these people simply because consumption is their main point of exposure/support of anti-feminism.
No, a boycott is withholding purchase to get a company to change. For example most people observing BDS would have no problem buying mcdonalds if they are no longer part of the occupation. The problem isn’t the product but how it’s obtained. With vegans the problem is the product and no amout of “free range” or “no chick killing” is gonna have us buy dairy or eggs.
It depends on the vegan and other circumstance I suppose. I would on BDS grounds and that even a vegan bigmac still supports one of the largest cow murdering corporations there is. I don’t understand the point of a “vegan” bigmac and having mcdonalds not be part of the palestinian or cow genocide means it would functionally be a completely different entity bearing only the name due to historical reasons. Like Nintendo the playing cards company and Nintendo the videogames company.
I am only boycotting when I have options or I really don’t need whatever is offered.
Also if it is the only option and I need it, the boycott takes a back seat.
An issue with boycotts in general is that people are constantly talking about what not to do and not what to do alternatively or the specifics on how to get there. Eventually it makes you realize that literally anything you do will cause someone to get genocided or abused somewhere, and when they way out isn’t clear or straightforward, now you’re overwhelmed with thousands of things you hate that you do and have to figure out how to change on your own one by one, and those changes result in new problems that overwhelm you or turn out to also be unethical and you have to change them yet again. And in the end you hate yourself because your change attempts made you miserable while you’re still doing doing harmful things and other people hate you because you’re still causing genocides and the rest think you’re an idiot or a hypocrite for trying at all, while meanwhile everyone else around you is just enjoying themselves and not giving a fuck, and you’ll always be a terrible person anyways so you might as well give up.
I think if more people instead of saying “don’t do this” instead said “do this instead” when they talked about what to boycott and why, that would help with harm reduction a lot more.
Veganism is not a boycott. Here’s the commonly-accepted definition of veganism from the Vegan Society:
It is practically a boycott though, since a purpose of a boycott is to avoid something that is unethical. With veganism you’re refusing to purchase (or obtain in other ways, but 99% of people purchase) products that involve animal exploitation. For BDS you’re refusing to purchase products that involve Palestinian exploitation. For most others you’re refusing to purchase products that involve other forms of human exploitation like slave labor, like with the chocolate industry, battery mining, sweatshops, etc. (Nestle being a common example)
At best, a boycott is part of veganism. Vegans obviously also don’t personally kill animals to eat, or kick puppies, or have cock fights. Not supporting those things financially is a consequence of that stance, not it’s sole purpose.
The reason it seems like a boycott is simply because for the average city dweller, buying animal products is simply the main way they interact with this form of oppression.
To try an analogy: Imagine most/all men actually not assaulting or raping women. But, 99% of them pay for others to do that on their behalf, three times a day. Feminism would look a lot like “just a boycott” to these people simply because consumption is their main point of exposure/support of anti-feminism.
No, a boycott is withholding purchase to get a company to change. For example most people observing BDS would have no problem buying mcdonalds if they are no longer part of the occupation. The problem isn’t the product but how it’s obtained. With vegans the problem is the product and no amout of “free range” or “no chick killing” is gonna have us buy dairy or eggs.
The product is “food”, the problem is animal abuse. Would vegans have a problem with buying a vegan bigmac?
It depends on the vegan and other circumstance I suppose. I would on BDS grounds and that even a vegan bigmac still supports one of the largest cow murdering corporations there is. I don’t understand the point of a “vegan” bigmac and having mcdonalds not be part of the palestinian or cow genocide means it would functionally be a completely different entity bearing only the name due to historical reasons. Like Nintendo the playing cards company and Nintendo the videogames company.
Sure, but that more or less also goes for Israel.
I am only boycotting when I have options or I really don’t need whatever is offered. Also if it is the only option and I need it, the boycott takes a back seat.
essentially what the tweet in the OP sounds like, thanks for putting it so succinctly.