Billie Eilish Responded To Criticism For Recent Vegan Statement: I Don't Give A Fxck!

[Ladle Ghoulash 45,385]

14 minutes ago, elegidadedios said:

No she does not she cares about the poor hence the release of her perfume  no basic needs but at least smell good you dumbass

I meant Bebe, not Billie.

[elegidadedios 4,520]

Just now, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I meant Bebe, not Billie.

I assume they also do LMAOOOOOOO

[elegidadedios 4,520]

Just now, elegidadedios said:

I assume they also do LMAOOOOOOO

Just kidding i don't wanna get another warning point 💖 spread kindness

[Bebe 17,282]

7 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I meant Bebe, not Billie.

Please, find one example in which I have scoffed at poor people. I have scoffed at the idea at people weaponising poverty against veganism by making up hypothetical poor people and arguing from their perspective to justify their own eating habits and factory farming.

Edited May 8 by Bebe

[Ashley 10,155]

11 hours ago, RAMROD said:

The replies so far are supporting her tho?

I notice this a lot on GGD  people focus on one or two negative comments just to argue lol.

[REALITY 79,803]

6 hours ago, PartySick said:

I don't have a problem with her calling out the meat industry, I have a problem with her telling me how I think and feel  

I love Billie but that just takes an activist's viewpoint and wraps it in a level of arrogance and ego that I'm not comfortable tolerating  

She's not gonna tell me how I feel 'cause I make the same dietary decisions humans have made since the dawn of man lmao.

Her delivery isn’t great, but idk, I’m able to separate the delivery and the content of her message. Like, I’m a fat f*ck who loves eating meat, so by all metrics, I should be just as offended by her statement, but I’m not. I recognize this is an area where I am hypocritical and her calling me, and others like me, out doesn’t particularly upset me. Even if the way she’s doing it can come across egotistical and arrogant. 

[Bebe 17,282]

I'm sorry, but there is a moderator who posted "I see in her the same JK Trolling kind of standing by her values honestly." in this very thread, on a mainly LGBTQI+ forum. 

Billie is telling people it's hypocritical to say you love animals while voluntarily supporting a system that leads to their suffering and slaughter. 

J.K Rowling donated to the legal campaign that led to the Supreme Court decision that successfully rolled back Trans rights. She actively contributed to a culture that views our trans sisters as a threat to children and cis-women and has contributed to other anti-trans rhetoric that reinforces social hostility towards trans people and excludes them. 

I could have posted about how atrociously offensive that comparison is, but I didn't think it was in good faith.

Would very much appreciate if people could read my posts, rather than create some offensive straw man - especially from someone who is so big on arguing out of good faith! 🙂 

Edited May 8 by Bebe

[elegidadedios 4,520]

[Bebe 17,282]

Anyway.. In the spirit of the above incredible insight... I might borrow a point from the thread I created on Israel. Will just change settlers to non-vegans and change my examples of state sanctioned violence and majority views.

It’s so eye opening to see how much we, as people, are so easy to manipulate to commit immoral acts of violence 

When this violence is state sanctioned (allowing animal agriculture, subsidising meat industries, teaching meat and dairy as ordinary nutrition ect.) and is a majority view (about 1% of the global population is estimated to be vegan) it seems that people develop a cognitive dissonance where they are able to justify unethical acts of violence despite this being against their usual, rational, moral code.

I see how these non-vegans seem so convinced of their righteousness and are able to internally justify such violence and disregard for suffering and I wonder whether it is even possible to change their minds. It can seem like a lost cause.

Obviously there isn’t much point persuading the most committed extremists first, they are clearly too invested in the ideology. We need to break the moral story that justifies the violence, raise the social cost of supporting this violence though boycotts, protests and condemnation to make cruelty less “normal” and harder to publicly defend.

What else do you expect someone like Billie to do except call out the violence for what it is, condemn those who participate in it and attempt to continue to grow and foster distain and dissent for the violence in order to encourage social and political action?

When cruelty is institutionalised, culturally normal and economically rewarded ordinary people can participate in it while still believing they are good people. This thread is the case in point.

Edited May 8 by Bebe

[Bronco 21,476]

2 hours ago, elegidadedios said:

Just kidding i don't wanna get another warning point 💖 spread kindness

Idk how i avoided one last time lol

[PartySick 171,266]

2 hours ago, REALITY said:

Her delivery isn’t great, but idk, I’m able to separate the delivery and the content of her message. Like, I’m a fat f*ck who loves eating meat, so by all metrics, I should be just as offended by her statement, but I’m not. I recognize this is an area where I am hypocritical and her calling me, and others like me, out doesn’t particularly upset me. Even if the way she’s doing it can come across egotistical and arrogant. 

Yeah but her statement wasn't "eating meat is morally questionable and not necessary". It was "you can't love animals and be a person who eats meat"  

Hopefully this will serve as a lesson to her  

Don't be sloppy with your activism  

And maybe do something proactive and constructive instead of tut-tuting people who genuinely could care less about what a celebrity says in regards to their personal decisions.

[PartySick 171,266]

2 hours ago, Bebe said:

Anyway.. In the spirit of the above incredible insight... I might borrow a point from the thread I created on Israel. Will just change settlers to non-vegans and change my examples of state sanctioned violence and majority views.

It’s so eye opening to see how much we, as people, are so easy to manipulate to commit immoral acts of violence 

When this violence is state sanctioned (allowing animal agriculture, subsidising meat industries, teaching meat and dairy as ordinary nutrition ect.) and is a majority view (about 1% of the global population is estimated to be vegan) it seems that people develop a cognitive dissonance where they are able to justify unethical acts of violence despite this being against their usual, rational, moral code.

I see how these non-vegans seem so convinced of their righteousness and are able to internally justify such violence and disregard for suffering and I wonder whether it is even possible to change their minds. It can seem like a lost cause.

Obviously there isn’t much point persuading the most committed extremists first, they are clearly too invested in the ideology. We need to break the moral story that justifies the violence, raise the social cost of supporting this violence though boycotts, protests and condemnation to make cruelty less “normal” and harder to publicly defend.

What else do you expect someone like Billie to do except call out the violence for what it is, condemn those who participate in it and attempt to continue to grow and foster distain and dissent for the violence in order to encourage social and political action?

When cruelty is institutionalised, culturally normal and economically rewarded ordinary people can participate in it while still believing they are good people. This thread is the case in point.

There is no way you're comparing the meat industry with legitimate genocide and crimes against humanity  

I fear you've lost the plot.

But ignoring that, I genuinely think you're fighting the wrong battle in the wrong way.

People against gun violence call for gun bans and guess what happens? Gun sales skyrocket and people dig into these almost religiously held pro-gun stances. Instead, they should be focused on incrementally closing legal loopholes and making inroads with gun owners showing how we can make this a country that both protects their 2A right to bear arms but also makes it a safer place. That's how you sway the ~70% of Americans who want gun control reform without alienating the skiddish ones.

People against gas powered cars want laws in place that ban the sale and ownership of petrol vehicles. That's caused huge backlash and people go out to intentionally buy the biggest, most gas guzzling trucks they can find to "stick it to the libs". Instead, what they should do is vote and organize to build the infrastructure to support EVs, urge politicians to incentivize buying an EV vs a gas powered car, and lean into the fact that EV sales were already growing.

For meat? You will NEVER win with a "you support cruelty and mass murder" argument 'cause it becomes a debate about morality which pisses people off (and rightfully so). Nobody will listen to you  

Swerving away from the moral arguments (which are irrelevant and weak as every person has different lines in the sand), you're factually correct  

So, since reality is on your (and Billie's) side, you have to wonder "why can't I convince anyone?". The flaw isn't cognitive dissonance or "meat eaters are just bad people". You're just not doing a great job of selling your stance.

"These people claim to be rational but when I throw statistics in their faces, show them pictures of dead animals, and call them evil for disagreeing with me they suddenly aren't wanting to hear what I have to say?!"

You're looking at people who are willing to give opposing stances an inch and demanding a mile and when they call you unreasonable for it, you call them evil  just take the inch and be constructive with it.

A small battle won is better than forfeiting the entire war.

I'm out of adages so  

Or maybe just stop caring so much about what a bunch of gays on a Lady Gaga fan site think  I'm sure you're active in your community to make some headway on animal welfare, no? If you're gonna be stressed enough to write essays (pot, black, etc) then do something important.

[Teletubby 159,968]

she has a problem with people who eat meat, but he has no problem wearing shoes made from animal skin.

[PartySick 171,266]

1 minute ago, Teletubby said:

she has a problem with people who eat meat, but he has no problem wearing shoes made from animal skin.

We're all hypocrites.

I believe she can hold true concerns about animal welfare and still wear animal products.

Just like I can love animals and eat a goddamn hamburger  

Billie  

[elegidadedios 4,520]

18 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

she has a problem with people who eat meat, but he has no problem wearing shoes made from animal skin.