Here’s a needless headline: The hidden biases that drive anti-vegan hatred. There are nothing hidden about the bias against vegans.
People love to moan that vegans are annoying: research has shown that only drug addicts inspire the same degree of loathing. Now psychologists are starting to understand why — and it’s becoming clear that the reasons aren’t entirely rational.
Vegans, many of them, are annoying prigs with loopy food habits just begging to be bullied. Even the author of this BBC anti-meat missive understands this, quoting the old joke “How do you recognise a vegan at a dinner party? Don’t worry! They’ll tell you!”
Nobody cares what vegans eat. If vegans were merely quiet hobbyists who gather to compare the rates of their bodies and minds withering from lack of meat, then nobody would care, not a soul would ever give them grief. It’s when they become the zealous unsilenceable bird watchers of culinary creation that they invite abuse.
Teasing the need-to-be teased is not what this article is really about, though. It’s instead yet another elite signaling that they’re not going to allow the masses to have their meat for much longer.
The reason the teasing is harsh is because we all know that, as with every progressive cause, it will not just be vegans who won’t eat animal products, but that they’ll do their best to force everybody into their punishing diet. Progressives cannot stand that people exist that disagree with them, and they use every avenue to ensure they don’t.
Doubt me? Then you’re a—wait for it…wait for it…wait for it—veganophobe!
Yes, a veganophobe. That well expected neologism was in the article to describe people who refuse to renounce their love of bacon.
Hank Rothgerber, a social psychologist at Bellarmine University, Kentucky, thinks it all comes down to answering the question: how do we continue to eat meat?
“So basically we live in an era today, at least in the Western world, where there’s more and more evidence, more and more arguments, and more and more books about how eating meat is bad,” says Rothgerber. “But still, our behaviour hasn’t changed significantly.” He points out that 2018 looks set to be — it takes a while for the annual statistics to be released — the year with the highest per capita meat consumption in the history of the United States.
“So what I’m looking at is, how do people rationalise that, and still feel like they’re a good person?” To continue to eat meat, Rothgerber suggests, requires some serious mental gymnastics. Luckily, our brains are extremely good at protecting us from realities we don’t want to face — and there are a number of psychological tricks at our disposal.
A credentialed denizen of a propaganda palace has a theory why you won’t stop eating meat. Lucky for us his brain is of a superior nature, probably due to a mutation from eating quinoa preserved in ancient Peruvian tree sap (only $324.82 per ounce). His brain does not protect him from realities. He alone can see clearly. He is here to tell us the sad truth: that eating meat is wrong.
Not for other animals. Only for us.
There is “more and more” evidence that eating meat is bad. There is less and less. Indeed, it’s turning out that the dietary advice of scarfing carbs, eschewing butter and fat, and the freak outs over cholesterol were wrong. Obesity is soaring in just those locales that have followed expert advice.
If you bring your cod and chips home to eat in front of your beloved goldfish, or tuck into a rabbit stew mere moments after cooing over various #rabbitsofinstagram, you’re likely to encounter “cognitive dissonance”, which occurs when a person holds two incompatible views, and acts on one of them. In this case, your affection for animals might just start to clash with the idea that it’s OK to eat them.
Your goldfish is liking chomping down on some shrimp heads, so its unlikely to complain you’re having hasenfeffer. Even Fluffy might have a bit of fur—not his own—stuck in his buck teeth. Some rabbits snack on carrion.
Besides, what incompatible views? That rabbits can be cute and tasty? Say, speaking of the love between pets and people. I wonder if Herr/Frau (I don’t want to assume Hank’s gender) Doktor Professor knows what cats do to cat ladies when the cat ladies consume one too many boxes of wine and keel over dead.
Some psychologists call this [so-called cognitive dissonance] the “meat paradox”, though it’s also been couched in stronger terms — as “moral schizophrenia”.
Does Hankie think lions feel bad as they rip the guts out of gazelles?
Anyway, Hankie’s theory is that meat “moral schizophrenia” causes angst, and angst explodes in bullying vegans. Vegan scolding nerdishness has nothing to do with it.
That is the progressive line: it’s always your fault. Never theirs.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here