subignition

Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?

“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.

Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though… and there are plenty of other minority movements that were defined by that same kind of binary language (most of them are not remembered fondly.)

I guess the point I am trying to make is, if your hypothesis is true, that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles. If you write a paragraph at someone and they would have to look up a half dozen words to even understand your point, they are much more likely to dismiss you as some kind of radical and/or loon rather than spend the time. It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.

They walk away thinking a vegan said some stupid shit to them, the vegan walks away thinking some stupid shit was said to them, and the interaction is a failure for all parties.

I think it is probably because it gets used in a way where it takes on a slur-like connotation. It feels a bit complicated to this onlooker; vegan and non-vegan would seem like adequate terms at first glance, but because “vegan” is overloaded (it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same) it feels a bit lacking.

And don’t forget that you still have to pay US income taxes on income earned overseas! 🙄