“raised questions about labelling transparency”
It seems like this is a question of the labelling being too transparent.
When the fetish of the commodity is pierced by the Real.
Sounds like the name of a sick metal album
What is this trend of very slow-paced narration that appeals to what many people or average people would think, and reads like one of those clickbait links with a shocking title but takes 30 clicks to progress to an anti-climactic ending?
It’s as if people can’t conceptualize something very well and need someone to do it for them.
Yeah. It’s odd to me as well. Like, it comes from click bait trying to keep you on an article long enough for ad revenue to build–I get that. I don’t get why it’s permeating.
Just became a little too real huh? A number implies this was an individual, a formerly living, breathing creature that was killed, not just meat conjured onto the store shelf. Hard to tell which I dislike more, the people who cling to this denial or the ones in the replies saying “yep it’s good that we kill animals, they’re super tasty!”
Reading the replies of the xcancel link I don’t see a lot of people expressing surprise/concern/empathy for the treatlerite. I was actually pleasantly surprised at the lack of “but meat tastes good!” type of replies. Most comments, that weren’t just making fun of the person, were matter of factly describing animal ag, and a subset of maybe 10-20% of those were from animal rights supporters.
As for the types of people you alluded to, well the first type starts off in denial separating mentally the product from the process that brings a living sentient being to their plate as food. A lot of social conditioning and marketing has gone into this perception and it’s hard to blame them for falling prey to it. But as you point out they then persist in this denial when reality pierces through their bubble.
The other type, the one who says well if we aren’t supposed to eat animals then why do they taste so good! hurr hurr hurr, is the human personification of the cry-laughing rolling-laughing emoji. Someone who is definitely flustered and bothered and putting on a front. I don’t think they’re engaging honestly with their food choices.
To conclude, the person who tries to sustain their denial is experiencing cognitive dissonance and is at least trying to grapple with the consequences of their actions, while the vice signalling meat eater claims to be unbothered and tries to needle plant based eaters, but realizes there is something to reconcile in their behavior but refuses to address it.
Disclaimer: I’m banned from c/vegan for being an omni lol, I should’ve read the rules before replying to posts originating in that comm.
Both are equally horrible people. They both participate in the same activity, and their opinion on it changes nothing. At least that’s how I see it.
I can’t believe the animal part I bought is an identifiable piece of an animal!! /S
Kinda reminds me of my coworker who loves eating meat but refuses to eat any that reminds him that it was once an animal. Anything with bones or anything recognizable as a living being is off the table, but chicken nuggets and steak are all fair game
I know carnists don’t like it when vegans draw comparisons between the meat industry and the Holocaust, but literally tattooing numbers onto their victims feels like it’s practically daring us to.
I once saw a good comment here on this topic: the Holocaust was the practices of animal agriculture applied to people.
wtf!!! this pig ear came from a pig?!? and you guys raised it just to kill?! who knew this was going on?!?
especially since it wasn’t disclosed on the packaging
So supermarkets will start showing footage of how animals are treated at farms in the meat and dairy sections?
It’s basically a tattoo right?
In this case, its just ink.
I think so? But it could have also been branded on.
![(CW: Meat) > Buys pig ears > Looks inside > Pig ears [shocked-pikachu]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/cb26f4b7-95a0-4c11-ab72-9ff5a48cbd7f.jpeg){kind=link}