NY Times: Stop Mocking Vegans

Lou

Forum Legend
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Reaction score
15,342
Age
68
Location
San Mateo, Ca
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
They’re right about ethics and the environment. If you won’t join them, at least respect their effort to build a sustainable future.
The New York Times is behind a paywall. but you can visit their web site for free a few times a month. I love the Times. And the Post. And I finally had to break down and pay for the Time's Digital Subscription. (yeah, I'm a cheap sumabitch)

Here is a link to the article. and if you can't view it, send me a PM and I will copy and paste it for you. Or better yet, subscribe to the Times. Those guys are doing a great job.

 
I read the article without pictures (being a Linux user with some terminal knowledge has it's perks) and smiled. Generally not a fan of an corporate news, but the article was worth reading.
 
I read the article without pictures (being a Linux user with some terminal knowledge has it's perks) and smiled. Generally not a fan of an corporate news, but the article was worth reading.

How? NY Times won't load articles in private mode and I'm always in private mode.
 
Yep I'm on Linux and know some basic terminal stuff, never tried accessing a web article though.

So how do I hack into the mainframe? ;)
 
Yep I'm on Linux and know some basic terminal stuff, never tried accessing a web article though.

So how do I hack into the mainframe? ;)

user~ lynx <url>

You may have to download lynx or links if your Linux distro wasn't packaged with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TofuRobot and Sax
So today the National Review has posted a "rebuttal" to the NY Times article.
BTW, in case you don't know the National Review, it is a very conservative magazine.
The National Review is to the NYTimes as Fox News is to MSNBC. Well, maybe not that bad.

Honestly, I didn't realize what I was reading at first. The title of the story is "Is the Future Vegan?" So I thought it was going to be a complimentary article for the NYT article. Only when I finished the article did I look at the banner and see that it was the National Review. Which was one of those Aha! moments. But to my credit, even just 4 paragraphs in I was wondering if the author actually had met and spoken to a "real vegan".

The author starts off with a typical debate strategy, echoing some of the NY Times' best statements. But then quickly moves on the attack. For instance, he states:

They are mindful of how costly their choice is socially and financially; some practically envy the ignorant abandon with which others consume whatever is served to them.​

Really? this statement is not something I have ever thought. and after a year participating in the Vegan Forum, I don't think I have ever heard a vegan express anything like this. At best its an exaggeration.

In the next paragraph, he quotes Rhys Southan, who as an author has written many articles opposing animal rights. Then goes on to say:

Perhaps the non-vegan will notice that a strict adherence to animal rights would require the abolition of agricultural techniques that the current vegan diet relies on, since these kill some animals (pests, animals caught in threshing machines, etc.) and steal and destroy the ecosystems on which yet more animals depend.​

This is basically a common approach by trolls to bait vegans. Most vegans learn the counter-arguments to this as soon as they run into it. Again at best an exaggeration or misleading. At worst, lies.

I could go with examples of misleading or false statements in this article, but I just threw up a little in my mouth.

A few days ago I remarked that Vegan KFC might be the tipping point. And I was heartened by the NYT article. And I should keep in mind that this IS the National Review whose headlines have most recently included the "Amazon Scam" and the "Opioid Shakedown". Maybe the best take on this is that it's a bit of wake up call and that we still have a long way to go.

Oh. Almost forgot. Here is a link to the article. It's also behind a paywall. but you get three free articles a month.

 
They’re right about ethics and the environment. If you won’t join them, at least respect their effort to build a sustainable future.
The New York Times is behind a paywall. but you can visit their web site for free a few times a month. I love the Times. And the Post. And I finally had to break down and pay for the Time's Digital Subscription. (yeah, I'm a cheap sumabitch)

Here is a link to the article. and if you can't view it, send me a PM and I will copy and paste it for you. Or better yet, subscribe to the Times. Those guys are doing a great job.

Reading this made me breathe a sigh of relief that someone is taking the time to tell others to stop bullying the vegan community. I decided to tell a friend of mine that I was going plant-based (I like that label a bit better if I had to choose one). He said "wait, vegan?! Oh give it a couple of months you will be trying to convert everyone". I felt a little embarrassment as he chose to say it in front of some other friends. However, I replied to him that this wasn't the case and what other people wish to do is their business. If someone were to ask me about it then I would be happy to have a conversation. Not everyone who is a part of the community is going to do it in an aggressive way. Some of us -believe it or not- don't want to "convert" we just wish to inform, mostly because we give s***! lol. This made my morning, thank you for sharing this.
 
The right wingers/conservatives will inevitably have to go through a period of very slow change featuring a lot of denial before eventually joining the left wingers/progressives just as they have already done to some extent on other issues. At least there is some engagement on the topic.

PS the arguments about soil were poor, and the way they try to conflate poverty and veganism at the end is weak. Article went downhill a lot in the second half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC and Lou
Three recent things have happened since I last posted.

1. It was so hot the other day that I had to get out of the apartment. There is this new beer and brat place that opened up in my town. I had read that they had Beyond Meat. So i went over and had a Beyond Bratwurst, an IPA, and a french fries. Everything was excellent but i thought the whole thing was too pricey. $20. The Bratwurst was really really good. I saw some Beyond Sausages in my local market - they are twice the price of the Field Roast ones. But they are a quarter of the price of the ones at the restaurant. So i may buy some frozen ones after all. The patio allows dogs - and there were about 5 or 6 there. They were cute and well behaved - but then one climbed up onto my picnic table and tried to eat my Brat.

2. The NY Times article reference the new Fried Chicken sandwich at Popeyes. And it has been in the news way too much. The last article I read was about a mob of armed men who ran into a Popeyes to get some.


3. Finally, the Samoan Prime minister said that climate deniers are stupid. Or crazy.

 
So today the National Review has posted a "rebuttal" to the NY Times article.
BTW, in case you don't know the National Review, it is a very conservative magazine.
The National Review is to the NYTimes as Fox News is to MSNBC. Well, maybe not that bad.

Honestly, I didn't realize what I was reading at first. The title of the story is "Is the Future Vegan?" So I thought it was going to be a complimentary article for the NYT article. Only when I finished the article did I look at the banner and see that it was the National Review. Which was one of those Aha! moments. But to my credit, even just 4 paragraphs in I was wondering if the author actually had met and spoken to a "real vegan".

The author starts off with a typical debate strategy, echoing some of the NY Times' best statements. But then quickly moves on the attack. For instance, he states:

They are mindful of how costly their choice is socially and financially; some practically envy the ignorant abandon with which others consume whatever is served to them.​

Really? this statement is not something I have ever thought. and after a year participating in the Vegan Forum, I don't think I have ever heard a vegan express anything like this. At best its an exaggeration.

In the next paragraph, he quotes Rhys Southan, who as an author has written many articles opposing animal rights. Then goes on to say:

Perhaps the non-vegan will notice that a strict adherence to animal rights would require the abolition of agricultural techniques that the current vegan diet relies on, since these kill some animals (pests, animals caught in threshing machines, etc.) and steal and destroy the ecosystems on which yet more animals depend.​

This is basically a common approach by trolls to bait vegans. Most vegans learn the counter-arguments to this as soon as they run into it. Again at best an exaggeration or misleading. At worst, lies.

I could go with examples of misleading or false statements in this article, but I just threw up a little in my mouth.

A few days ago I remarked that Vegan KFC might be the tipping point. And I was heartened by the NYT article. And I should keep in mind that this IS the National Review whose headlines have most recently included the "Amazon Scam" and the "Opioid Shakedown". Maybe the best take on this is that it's a bit of wake up call and that we still have a long way to go.

Oh. Almost forgot. Here is a link to the article. It's also behind a paywall. but you get three free articles a month.


OH I trolled him on Twitter and sent him a Footsoldier Freddy and Ryan video. That guy is a POS.