• WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”

    I don’t see the problem. Non-vegatarians/vegans are already called omnivores and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I wouldn’t expect them to go out of their way to label themselves as such unless they were saying something like “I’m an omniVore” as a Vore joke. Carnists is the term that’s used to be derogatory (although I think some weirdos who like to define themselves in opposition to vegans do call themselves that?). Likewise, “cissies” is a derogatory way to refer to the cis, but “cis” is just the neutral word used describe them. I wouldn’t expect people to go out of their way to proclaim their cisness, but getting upset that the term exists and people use it is mostly just a bit.

    • syreus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      We spend immense effort getting the world to listen and allow us to be identified by how We wish to be identified. To flip the script and say we get to determine how others are identified unapologetically does not parse.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If someone wanted to identify their pronouns as “fuck n******”, I’m never going to respect their label or the person as a whole. If you make your whole identity about hating others, then you deserve to either totally ignored or mocked.

    • Verserk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve seen them call omnivores “bloodmouths” now on lemmy because carnist wasn’t offensive enough I guess?