786
me_irl
(feddit.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
786 points (100.0% liked)
me_irl
6942 readers
1057 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As someone who tries to eat less meat in general because climate change and cows are basically giant grass eating slightly smellier dogs, I cannot take anyone who unironically uses "carnist" and "bloodmouth" seriously from that point on.
The more names you use to describe "person who eats meat" that you think are insulting and derogatory, the more people roll their eyes and move on with their planned meal.
Also when they add extraneous hyperbole to invalidate themselves.
No, there's nothing sweet or savory about rotting meat, but it isn't rotting, now is it?People that eat meat do not eat rotting carcasses (RFK aside) the same way vegans don't eat rotten vegetables.
This isn't meant to be an "achktually", just a bit of trivia on the process of how we prepare meat.
And why, their hyperbole is actually even dumber than you think once you know the process.
After we kill an animal, it is left to hang for a couple of days depending on temperature. And it is so oxygen can interact and the meat starts to break down a bit, it decays. It's slowly rotting. And there's a fine balance between decay and bacteria growth. Simplified. The closer you are to that line, and the longer it can hang, the more tender it will be.
E.g. wild game is suggested to hang for at least 40 "day temperature". So if the average temperature is 5 degrees Celcius, it needs to hang for 8 days. 5*8=40. If the average temperature is lower, it hangs for longer. It's generally believed you need at least 2 degrees for the decay process to happen the way we want to. And if you start to reach 10 degrees, you have a much higher risk of bacteria growth. (These are in the context of average temperatures, hanging outdoors)
I don't know the ins and outs of beef or pork, but the principle is the same. And today, I would assume all slaughter-houses have large stable rooms where the temperature and airflow is controlled down to the decimals.
So... I'd say yeah, the sight of a cut of meat, prepared in a highly controlled decay process. Is incredibly savory. Because you know it's gonna be tender as hell!
Ummmm, rotting meat can be "sweet" due to decay as in "the sweet smell of rotting meat". Don't think that you should eat it when its that off, but yeah I don't get how rotting is an insult here.
Yeah I'm basically in the same boat. I call myself a half assed vegetarian - I don't typically buy meat for myself but if I go somewhere and meat's already been ordered I won't make a big fuss. I think meat is bad for the environment and cruel to the animals, and want people to care more about that, but it's an emotional issue that needs to be handled as such.
It is annoying that some people are so emotionally invested in meat that it's a hot button triggering topic, but that's how it is.
Some left wing people will call the USA like "burgerland" or "ameriKKKa" and I'm just like that's not going to win any converts. People who aren't already firmly in your camp are going to stop listening.
if you're very passionate about something it's easy to use strong words, and i think while it's annoying to me it's generally acceptable if used like this. I can't personally develop any strong feelings about vegetarianism or veganism, but I've had my passionate political moments in my life (and still do sometimes) and I guess it's kind of respect worthy, at least when I myself can see the logic of the argument or even agree to an extent.
Used to be I would get pretty frenzied when confronted with what I could fathom about capitalism, so I can empathize.
Sounds like the anti-woke sentiment of being more racist in spite, because some doesn't like being called out for their behaviour.
Would you prefer the rational argument, that the meat industry fuels climate change and speeds up the destruction of our planet?
... they literally raised that point.
Oh wow, I am dumb. ๐
Yea reminds me of people who think it's an epic own to say they'll eat two steaks instead when talking to vegans. Congrats on worsening your health I guess (among other things)
My reflexive response is "no you won't." If they wanted 2 steaks, they were going to do so regardless.
If people were so easily manipulated, then I would start leaning heavily into reverse psychology.
"Bloodmouth" is clearly trying to be a slur (although it's the first time I see the term). "Carnist" however is just a neologism with meaning "someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation".
Words exist to convey meaning, that's all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that's for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.
Vocabulary has a lot to do with it, no one wants to be called a slur and they use carnist as a slur
Then what word would you like people to use for "person eating meat as part of their alimentation"? I ask in good faith, I'm really curious to know your opinion.
I don't think that "meat-eater" is necessarily better than "carnist" ๐ Or a negative like "non-vegeterian"? A bit of a mouthful.
It's not up to me to support bigotry. Sort it out amongst yourselves like adults
Omnivore is pretty neutral
Alright, that's pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting "plant and animal matter", but I don't know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.
Ugh I hate this attitude. People that say "words are just words" have never had a slur yelled inches from their face.
If words are just words, then what is hate speech?
I don't deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like "bloodmouth"). In this particular case, "carnist" is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.
Like I said in the other thread, it's describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. "Omnivorous" was proposed as an alternative, but it's initially understood as "digesting plant and animal matter" in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.
There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.
Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I'm myself eating meat so I don't want to draw parallels here.
that is not what it means
Okay I had a look and, you're right. Apparently it's an academic word in sociology meaning "prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat." So it's not the practice, it's the way of thinking.