176 Vegans be Veganing: aka “The Case of the Ice Cream Truck and the Crying Child” (a Rantisode)

This week we have another rantisode for you: this time, we go off vegans veganing all over the internet. We weigh in on the recent kerfuffle around a woman giving a crying child money for ice cream, health veganism, and our culture of solutionizing.

In This Episode

This week, we’re fired up right out of the gate! The theme is Vegans be Veganing, and everything we cover today is on-theme, from the news to the joke to the main topic.

We decided to weigh in on the somewhat recent Twitter scandal where a vegan woman posted about giving a crying child money to buy ice cream from an ice cream truck and then was attacked for it.

Then we talk about a recent post in the VWPA Society group on Facebook around eating disorders and eating a plant-based diet, tying this into our growing hate for health veganism activism as well as the dangers of trying to force people who aren’t ready into a plant-based way of eating while not giving them non-food options for participating in a vegan practice.

Lastly, and relatedly, we talk about the rampant problem of “solutionizing” that we have in our culture at large, but also specifically in the vegan community.

Joke in the Middle
What do you call it when a vegan throws a fit? (thanks, Avery!)

Links and Information

News

#IceCreamGate2018 Articles

4 comments

  • We either need to welcome allies or accept the purity police. Logan Paul is a douche… bad, vegan… good. Plant based eaters may not hold to all your beliefs, but they are killing fewer animals.

    I think the big picture is more important than our personal dislikes.

    • I don’t think we have to do either-or… It’s not inherently bad that Logan Paul is vegan, but it doesn’t help our movement to worship every celebrity who goes vegan because if they are racist or sexist or ableist,… or just douchebags it turns away people from veganism, because if we have all those “bad” people representing veganism in the first line people who are starting to think about veganism will probably think twice about it because they might not want to be associated with those vegans and it also makes veganism look even more like this elite club of rich, white, cis, hetero men.

      And how does it help the animals if we turn away all those other people just to have another popular white man as a representative who might or might not educate people about “the right” reasons to go vegan, who might or might not just use veganism in a (body/food/…) shaming way, who might or might not convince people to consider or even go vegan and who might or might not stay vegan.

      Don’t get me wrong I think it’s great if someone goes vegan but I don’t think all this celebrity worship is necessary (and I think Nichole and Callie talked about this a lot in their episodes).

      And maybe he changes in the future and becomes a great vegan, intersectional,… activist and then we can tell about him as a great example, but right now all this celebrating is kind of exaggerated.

      I think the big picture is more important than focusing and worshipping one (terrible) individual ;)

      • I guess I don’t care about the cult of celebrity at all. Certainly, I don’t judge other folks entertainment quirks. On the other hand I really, really want to save animals the horror of be abused, broken and murdered for the sake of blind consuming.

        Any single way we can convince, befuddle, berate, fool, bedazzle some star worshiping Kardashian lip glitter wearer or NFL fan-bro into eating plants for any meal – once, a day, a week a month or forever, I say do it. *Always* the right choice and if that offends my philosophical sensibilities – well I guess that’s inconvenient for me.

  • I’m not sure it’s even worth it… but it’s the internet, so I’m here. This is your podcast, and you’re thing, and I do appreciate a lot of the research and effort you put into it. But I’ve noticed a lot of times when there seem to be contradictions that are hard to digest as a listener because of how hard you drive home certain points. Maybe I don’t understand, and maybe there is more going on that isn’t being discussed. For one, in this eps (and previous) there is a lot of emphasis on not policing other’s veganism or not ‘taking away’ people’s ability to self identify, but then even in the same discussion you’ll audibly roll your eyes at someone who eats ‘plant-based’ but you won’t call them vegan even if they seem to identify that way. You never know someone’s whole story, so why be that kind of vegan you just ranted about? I know what you mean about the vegan movement vs diet, but why not call someone vegan if they want to be called that if you’re all about self-identifying? Also in this eps you talk about how people are too combative and call each other out too much (hi! LOL) and you ask that there ‘should be something left’ after we tear down certain institutions. I totally agree! But then shortly after that you randomly mock someone’s twitter username because it has the word ‘avocado’ in a cutesy way (and it really did not seem like you were just joking – it was definitely a condescending tone), and also went on a full-on rant against your listeners for posting unwanted advice about how to avoid banking fees, while acknowledging that they were not trying to ignore your larger point. I know what you mean about unwanted advice, I totally do. But people couldn’t read your mind, and I don’t think you stated that you wanted zero advice (as opposed to the FB post mentioned). That kind of advice does not seem like the ‘mansplainy’ egregious crap that needs to be addressed – that rant just felt super weird. I am hoping that those who want to build a community tear down oppression and exploitation while also building up positive, constructive connections.

Join the discussion!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.