From Philosophical Vegan Wiki

Note: This is a work in progress, and may contain factual errors. If you see any mistakes, particularly about people, please let us know and we'll fix them ASAP.

For most vegans, racism could not be more distant from veganism. As a rule, vegans abhor it as much as or more than speciesism.

However, veganism, being something of a counter culture, often finds fertile soil in the same minds that are attracted to other more fringe ideas from Flat-Earth to unfortunately racism and White Nationalism; and unfortunately a tolerance of these beliefs and their advocates is being promoted as analogous to tolerance of meat-eaters.





Definition of Racism

The dictionary definition of racism is fairly straight forward, and deals with personal belief systems based on race:

The Oxford English Dictionaries defines racism as such:

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. 1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. ‘theories of racism’[1]

However, as racism has been politicized it can come to have more complex and controversial definitions in some circles. Slate Star Codex has an extensive and nuanced discussion of the definition of racism here[2], including how messy it is in practice.

As usual, the answer is that “racism” is a confusing word that serves as a mishmash of unlike concepts. Here are some of the definitions people use for racism:

1. Definition By Motives: An irrational feeling of hatred toward some race that causes someone to want to hurt or discriminate against them.

2. Definition By Belief: A belief that some race has negative qualities or is inferior, especially if this is innate/genetic.

3. Definition By Consequences: Anything whose consequence is harm to minorities or promotion of white supremacy, regardless of whether or not this is intentional. [3]

Definition by consequences - as explained very well in that blog - does not fit common usage and is even linguistically incoherent.

People like to ask questions like “Did racism contribute to electing Donald Trump?” Under this definition, the question makes no sense. It’s barely even grammatical. “Did things whose consequence is to harm minorities whether or not such harm is intentional contribute to the election of Donald Trump?” Huh? If racism is just a description of what consequences something has, then it can’t be used as a causal explanation. [...] by this definition, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say a particular person is racist. Racism is a property of actions, not of humans.[4]

Here we use the common definitions, which deal with systems of personal beliefs or feelings about race which lead to irrational biases on the basis of race -- from simple multi-generational hatred, to beliefs of general inferiority, moral inferiority, or specific forms of inferiority which people choose to believe that are not based on hard evidence (e.g. believing that dark skinned people are not as good at synthesizing vitamin D from limited exposure to sunlight is not a racist belief, but pseudo-scientific beliefs about racial IQ differences are).





The Harm

Number six of the Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism is "Loudly advocating unrelated fringe claims."

Vegan Nazis, white nationalists, and other racists are certainly harmful to veganism (these aren't popular beliefs, even among conservatives who are more tolerant of them), but racism is special among most of those claims.

Where something like Flat-Earthism is ridiculous and makes veganism look ridiculous by association from people who advocate both, it's otherwise relatively benign (aside from promoting scientific ignorance and conspiratorial thinking). We're at no risk of hosting social policies or electing Flat-Earther political candidates who will act in accordance with those beliefs to do actual harm. Racism is different: it's actually harmful.

In the United states, in an unfortunate turn in 2016 for the once respectable Republican Party, Donald Trump courted support from avowed racists and the Ku Klux Klan, propelling him into the highest office where he has done substantial harm to immigration reform and emboldened white supremacists whose terrorism is on the rise while Trump cuts funding to fight it[5], despite the number of deaths resulting from right-wing terrorism being only slightly less than Islamic terrorism[6] although spread out over a larger number of attacks, which may make them less sensational to report on and create a reporting bias[7].



Racism will lose. This is not a viable ideology, and there is no serious risk of White Nationalist policies taking hold. However, in their struggle to bring their beliefs to fruition make no mistake: racism is not a benign absurdity. Both promoting and apologizing for racist beliefs is inherently harmful.





Relevance to veganism

Racism is harmful, so what? Why do we, as vegan advocates need to care?

Guilt By Association is one reason; we don't need literal vegan Nazis sullying the image of veganism. But beyond fighting something evil in the world: a little bit of good social karma? Vegans are often accused of only caring about animals, and ignoring harm to humans done by our own only reinforces that even if nobody assumes veganism and racism are related. Vegans have some obligation to police bad behavior among our own, if not intrinsically, then by mandate of general opinion. We see the same kind of mindset in the belief that Muslims should be doing more to speak up against Islamic terrorism. There's something to be said for not overdoing it and becoming vegan police, but beyond the possibility of a vegan going on a serial killing rampage, this pretty much takes the cake. It's also a very politically safe position to take; racism isn't going to grow in popularity; if you're worried about coming down on the wrong side of history, don't be.

This does NOT mean expelling anybody from our ranks with the slightest appearance of racism.

Disagreeing with affirmative action, or some other political position, isn't racist.

Not usually being attracted to other races isn't racism (being against other people having interracial marriages is).

Voting Republican isn't racist. Not thinking the racist things that candidate has said are more important than other issues isn't either.



Conservatives should be welcome, and that includes people who are even -- in effect -- a little bit racist. "Racist" in the most general baseline sense of cultural racism.

They might make some bad jokes, or laugh at them. They certainly fail implicit association tests, and they sometimes say things like "I'm not racist, but... [insert something that sounds kind of racist]" without thinking about it. There are a lot of people who simply don't realize what's inappropriate, or might not have thought about these things much or may hold some misconceptions about race. There's nothing malicious or intentional there. This common passive form of racism is a social problem, but it's not something to condemn individuals over when they can be educated, and in many cases it's probably not worth bringing up directly; they just need to have some friendly contact with people outside their social bubbles.

The problem comes from the overt, and even proud, racism, white nationalism, and open promotion of the pseudoscience’s and ideologies these people rely on.





Vegan Racists

Earthling Carl

YouTube and twitter personality.

White Nationalist who makes fascist propaganda, promotes Nazi propaganda documentaries and allows his comment section to be a breeding ground of hate.

"100% agree, fascism would be a great alternative to what we have now."





John Rose

Raw Vegan YouTuber.

"Hitler was pretty nice to the Jews after what the Jews did to Hitler"

Video Reference:





Walter Bond and Camille Marino

Ex-anarchists, Ex-Animal Liberation Front convicts, Walter Bond and Camille Marino have launched the website 'Vegan Final Solution', a neo-nazi platform trying to recruit from the vegan & animal liberation milieu.

Supported by Unnoffensive Animal in a hopeful disregard for Walter Bond's fascist leanings, they were convinced by his support group that his early fascist writings were just a short lived cause of trautmatic prison conditions. They encouraged vegans to send letters of support and buy his book. Allowing their respect for his actions to get in the way of transparancy and accountability.

WE ADVOCATE a third position beyond left and right-wing ideology; a third position that encompasses the best of both, and discards the rest.

WE ADVOCATE a misanthropic worldview and motive behind all our actions, deeds and writings. For the animals we have become species traitors. This includes, but is not limited to, an aggressive stance against reproduction, an advocacy of abortion and euthanasia. The only breeding not wholly intolerable in our eyes, is solely for the purpose of rearing a new generation of animal liberators and subversives against society.

WE ADVOCATE a total lack of concern for egalitarian issues. The whole laundry bag of activist, and so called “total liberation” issues, not only seeks to put the focus right back on worthless people, but also undermines the animals’ safety by making society more cohesive and functional.

WE BELIEVE in personal responsibility and authority over personal freedom and self-importance.

WE ADVOCATE a hierarchy where those that exercise self-discipline and self-sacrifice for the good of animals and the earth are deemed more deserving of life than the gluttonous, selfish drones that shovel dead animals into their grotesque faces, simply to satiate their lust for rotting meat. With hierarchy, we seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Anarchy upholds what is base and vile, and it makes degeneracy its standard.

Promoted by the North America Animal Liberation Press Office, SupportWalter.org & Forward to Eden.

Listed on the website as ‘friends & allies’ are Gary Yourofsky (ADAPTT) & Black Rose Belarus.



Further Reading:





Cory and Tara McCarthy

Cory is a vegan fitness youtuber who sometimes makes conservative opinion pieces. Tara used to host a white nationalist talk show on YouTube, but has since deleted or privated all her videos and Cory has purged his channel of white nationalist content.

Tara (arguably the worse of the two) has owned the title "racist" while Cory has rejected it on questionable semantic grounds, insisting that racism is based in hate (which allows virtually anybody to cop out of racism on the grounds that there's no "hate" whatever that is held to mean), or on the grounds that he doesn't consider any race superior to another (which is often part of simplistic dictionary definitions).



This denial of superiority is common to white nationalists, and like them Cory argues that he is not a white supremacist because he doesn't believe any race is better or worse than any others, just different.



However when you examine the "virtues" ascribed to whites compared to other races (except Asians) by white nationalists and their actual rhetoric, whites being intelligent, civilized, etc. it becomes clear they haven't put much thought into how these races are supposed to be equal to each other when virtually every virtue of modern society is ascribed disproportionately to whites: the equality of races of their Motte which they retreat to when challenged but don't in practice believe in.



Video References:





Jayme Louis Liardi

Vegan YouTuber who's taking a break or quit making videos.

Briefly returned to say he was born again, blindly following in the trend of 'trad catholic' fascists.

Neo-nazi & holocaust denier. Gave glowing interview to nazi propagandist in which he called his books "true history narratives of the workers riech and adolf hitler."



References:





Jack Green

Was banned off of YouTube for pro-Nazi videos and briefly resided on twitter creating new accounts every time he got banned for reasons such as defending 'the MAGA bomber' sending parcel bombs to leftist public figures.[1]

Went from raw vegan cultist, to MGTOW, to White Nationalist, to Classical Nazi. Influences were Durianrider, Ask Yourself and Richard Spencer.[2]

I was introduced to the ideas on nationalism, I already could tell that a lot of it, if not most of the media was full of shit, and their anti-white propaganda just sickened me, but I learned to question more and more of history, developed an interest in my own lineage and ancestry. . .

Why have the desire to perpetuate your own race when it could result in you getting screwed over and leading a life of slavery and misery. . .

Maybe a potential solution for people who are or are starting to become MGTOW's and nationalists at the same time, it may be time to start thinking about adopting a kid of your own race, or having a surrogate child, that way you don't have to deal with marriage and women, and you'll be able to instill your ideas in your kids and continue your own race. [His own emphasis on the word instill, implicitly acknowledging fascism has much less chance at winning over rational critical thinking adults, so needs to focus on brainwashing children.]

Shares national action propaganda on his twitter, (see thumbnail to the right). 2 The white supremacist organization was outlawed in December 2016 after endorsing the murder of Labour MP, Jo Cox 3. One member of the group committed attempted murder with a machete 4, while another bought a machete and conspired to carry out the murder of Labour MP Rosie Cooper 5

Promotion of anything as bad or worse than geocoding people as moral retribution for people having children with partners outside their own skin color:



Video References:

1. Jack Green before he became a Neo-Nazi | Deleted Vegan Video Archive #45

2. JackGreen on White Nationalism and Mein Kampf





OGMizen

Vegan YouTuber who went from hating on Muslim immigrants and advocating anarcho-capitalism, to hating on Jewish people for an imagined conspiracy to replace white people with immigrants and so he now advocates white separatism.

Believes immigration will collapse society and it will be down to people uniting in small communities with guns at the village walls for survival. Influences were Molyneux and Vox Day.

Promotes neo-nazi YouTubers Owen Benjamin & AshaLogos (see picture to the right)[1]

Plus a laundry list of anti-semitic consipracies:[2][3]

They run the porno industry which is awful like awful, they've run just about everything, they're the main people pushing the wars, all right, just the main people pushing immigration, the main people pushing LGBT stuff, they're all Jews. Like oh god I'm not gonna fucking just ignore this fact, it's like they're not all Jews, but fucking 90% of them are Jews and the 10% that aren't Jews are being paid by Jews, so what am I supposed to conclude from this?. . .

Like if I'm honest I think this black lives matter… because the media always cloak things in opposite language, they always tell you the direct opposite of what they are doing, always! It seems. Legit always. So you just have to reverse what they're saying and you have the truth, right? I mean this is obvious in so many cases, like 'ah Donald Trump is colluding with Russia', well if you kind of reverse, if you look at the reverse of that, it’s like no, it’s his opponents who are accusing him of colluding with Russia, the vast majority of them have dual citizenship with Israel. And they're fucking like... So they say literally almost always say the opposite of what they tell you is going on if you actually know the facts, so this black lives matter thing, as far as I can tell is setting the stage to you know really fuck the blacks, really fuck the blacks in America and probably elsewhere as well. But it's not going to work out well for you guys, smashing people's businesses, rioting, looting and I guarantee, I get the vast majority of people doing this, well I get that a lot of this is basically staged right, what I think is going on is you've got a bunch of bad actors, a bunch of kind of police CIA in citizen uniform so to speak, going around starting riots, throwing bricks. . .

Right, because there's fucking... this is not even black victim culture for the most part, this is white displaced kind of maternal instinct, right? This is why I say it’s a bunch of fucking sterile, homosexual, broken, doesn't matter which one it is, it’s one of them for each of them, right? Sterile women, homosexual women, childless women, fucking barren old, you know bat… it’s all women, again, yet again, it's the women fucking pushing this shit, and it's because it's it's the displaced maternal instinct that they should have been putting on the children that they never had, right? Thanks to all this feminism liberation bullshit, right? Abortions, fucking shout your abortion, it’s the displaced maternal instinct that would have gone to the children that they should have had, but the Jew convinced them not to have that child, right?

It's possible homophobia was one incidental cause of his becoming a far-right Christian fundamentalist:[2]

Sodomy is a sin, pride is a sin, gay pride is definitely a sin, right? Pride is the worst sin of all the sins and that gay pride, right? Well I mean once you really understand what Christianity is aiming at, you see just how perfectly antithetical to Christianity all of this sort of stuff is.

When asked to clarify if he thought gay people having a relationship is fine, just not the sex i.e. "hate the sin, love the sinner." He answered:

1. It's not that I think sodomy is a sin, it is a sin. According to the bible, not me.

2. No that is not my position.

3. That would not be an application of 'hate the sin, love the sinner', and even if it was, I’m not sure that’s even a legit Christian idea, its certainly not biblical as far as I know.



Video References:

1. OGMizen Promotes Neo-Nazi Owen Benjamin

2. OGMizen Racism & Homophobia Source

3. OGMizen Racism Source #2





Vegan Reich

Vegan YouTuber who's taking a break or quit making videos.

A conspiracy theorist that made a ton of Nazi propaganda videos with titles such as 'Adolf the great' and 'Judaism is satanic'.

Promoted by Vegetable Police during his brief affair with Nazism.





Pro-Vegan Racists

Adolf Hitler

Hitler wasn't vegan, and he probably wasn't even a vegetarian by modern standards (he does seem to have avoided most meat for reasons of a sensitive stomach). The Nazi party, however, did have some strong policies on animal welfare for the time (which seems ironic given how they treated other humans). It may have all been propaganda, or there may have been a legitimate concern there (Even Hitler probably wasn't pure evil).

Whether there's a hint of truth in this or not, the point is that many Nazis believe the propaganda about Hitler as an animal lover, and that has seen a disturbing trend of vegan Neo-Nazis, particularly among Nipsters (Nazi Hipsters).





Sangeet Som

A relatively unknown legislator of the BJP from western UP shot into fame during the Muzaffarnagar violence. He was credited with posting and circulating a video on the social media, taken out from an incident in Pakistan, and using it to whip up hate against the Muslims in the area. By the time the video was exposed as false by an apathetic state apparatus, Muzaffarnagar had erupted in violence. This violence placed Som centrestage, he was garlanded and felicitated at meetings even as an arrest warrant was out against him. He was arrested finally and released on bail in record time.

With this record Som has become a well known face of the BJP. He travels to ‘trouble spots’ to whip up sentiment against the minorities. He was in Dadri recently whipping up passions and demanding that the family of Mohammad Akhlaq who was beaten to death by a mob on the issue of beef, now be charged with a case of cow slaughter. This was after an unverified report suddenly emerged after eight months claiming that the meat consumed by Akhlaq was beef. Som has announced that he will personally ensure the release of the 17 persons arrested for lynching Akhlaq.

The beef ban celebrated by some vegans hasn’t gone anyway to reducing the consumption of cows in the country and was only instituted to flatter Hindu nationalists in a what is supposed to be a secular country and has inevitably resulted in the murder of many Muslims and Dalits who had already been suffering at the hands of so-called "cow vigilantes".

Animal rights and veganism advocate PETA has in fact gone further and berated vegetarians who consume milk in India for "supporting the beef industry", thus playing into the communal politics of food in India.





The Golden One

Classical Nazi whose only reason he doesn't explicitly adopt the Nazi label or image is for fear of alienating other White Nationalists whose countries were devastated as a result of Nazi actions.

Is a pro-Nazi history revisionist, links viewers to Nazi propaganda film "The Greatest Story Never Told" and believes a major part of what sparked WW2 was "Germanic people and Slavic people in the East Germany west of Poland, they're competing for the same fucking territory of land, we clearly learned that multiculturalism, having different ethnicities in the same place will lead conflict, that's the only fucking thing we can learn and that's also majorly what sparked world war two that poles were committing transgression against Germans".

Holocaust denier, says just 300,000 Jews died of malnutrition at work camps.



Video Reference:





Ex-Vegan Racists

Charles Marlowe

Became vegan based on the pseudoscientific health advice of raw vegan youtuber Freelee and quickly became a parasite on the community, defaming people to attract attention so he could live off of ad revenue, for which he is currently being sued. After years of this toxic-ness he found himself most comfortably aligning with the far-right and stated his reasons for leaving veganism was the nationalist pseudoscience of InfoWars in claiming veganism will only ever be possible on a small percentage of the Earths land and therefore America will have to become an agrarian society in order to help feed and build up the rest of the world.

Links to video of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel who says it was the Jewish people's fault the Nazi German government turned on them. Also that they are acting in the same power grabbing way they did back then in America and foretelling the same "solutions" to this problem will be repeated, "whatever the holocaust was, you've got one in your future."1

Charles's pro-Nazi history revisionism and ongoing conspiracy today (grammar corrected, see original caption to the right):

This is about Pre-Nazi Germany and how the BT decayed the society just like they are doing here in America.

A lot of people don’t know about the Jewish supremacy and degeneracy in Germany before Hitler which lead to what actually became WW2

The “Jews” are not innocent, and if anything, are to blame for much of the way the world ended up after WW2. I’m not saying “Hail Hitler” I’m saying the narrative of good versus evil when it comes to history, should be taken with a grain of salt. We need to realize the Jews want us to hate Germany, hate ourselves, accept their Supremacy, and all the degenerate nature they bring to western civilization.

Thinks there's a conspiracy of Jews running all the world's governments.2

Jews had him kicked off YouNow.2

Jews pushing homosexuality in kids shows.2

Jews don't want him getting up early and off drugs.2

Dog-whistling keywords like 'Globalists' or 'BT' meaning 'Biblical Tribes' to refer to the Jews as behind whatever he views as the problem. Caricatures Jews as having soulless, dead eyes.2



Video Reference:





Vegetable Police

Created a "Vegan Nazi" t-shirt and advertised it on YouTube.

Echoed a series of Holocaust denier claims and the belief that a conspiracy of Jews are running the world.

Probably isn't an actual racist, just likes collecting conspiracy theories like the idea the earth is flat. Has tried to distance himself from the mistake. "Not a Nazi, just stupid".

Was sold on the idea by John Rose.



Video Reference:





Vegans Who Promote Racists

Previously "Apologists"

A racist promoter (or sometimes even apologist) is somebody who may or may not be racist his or herself, but has knowingly defended (as an apologist) OR promoted (intentionally or not) affirmed racists (without explicitly defending their beliefs). Promotion can come in the form of giving the racist a platform or "plugging" them in content, particularly if the content reaches a large audience, whether or not it was intentional. Apologia where it occurs may come in the form of backing up some of their claims or otherwise making excuses for them and endorsing their characters.





Isaac Brown

Isaac Brown (aka "Ask Yourself") is almost certainly not a racist himself, but he is a friend of racist and white nationalist Cory McCarthy (vegan) and has promoted him on his YouTube channel.[1] Arguably worse, he's also a friend and promoter of white supremacist Jean-François Gariépy; Gariépy is not a vegan, so we don't cover him here, but see the Rational Wiki article for a good breakdown of Gariépy's racist beliefs.

While Isaac personally disagrees with racism, his acts of promoting their content outside the context of explicit criticism of those beliefs in effect inadvertently promotes racists and their ideologies by giving them a broader audience. The core issue is that Isaac doesn't see a problem promoting those people on his channel in the context of vegan advocacy or argument. He has likened it to being friends with or working with carnists (it's not).



Ex-apologist

In the past Isaac engaged in defending Cory and Tara McCarthy, even echoing and confirming the racist beliefs of much of his fan-base, and defending himself with the claim that they're just facts, and arguments like 'facts can't be racist' (Yes, False "Facts" Can Be Racist). For example, see the 2 captions to the right:

However, Isaac has lately made a turn-around with respect to the claims of white nationalists, rejecting them after being given evidence. For example, in response to evidence, Isaac has expressed more skepticism of some of the factual claims about mixed children having lower IQ.

It should be clear that despite previously believing the erroneous claims of many white nationalists, Isaac has always disagreed with the moral conclusions of white nationalists: namely, he has never believed non-whites should be expelled from predominately white nations or that they necessarily have less moral value. One of his arguments for his disagreement with their moral conclusions is based on his Name The Trait argument, although he has not yet been successful in changing their minds on the matter. Unfortunately, because they are immovable on this point, as a friend and promoter of the McCarthy’s', Isaac has likely only served to reinforce the core beliefs upon which their racism is founded and possibly even inadvertently spread them.

Because his interactions with them have not been primarily hostile/critical, it's an inevitable fact that this promotion has led to these racists gaining following.

While he has posted a record of correcting the claim, he has thus far not apologized for spreading this false information in the past. This is unfortunate, because with his production quality and argumentation he could easily make a powerful video debunking white nationalism both factually and morally using name the trait.

Unfortunately, as of original writing here he still continues to platform white nationalists and white supremacists (often to argue against their positions on veganism) without challenging their harmful racist ideologies. It's a case of silence on those issues while criticizing others implying that they aren't a problem. Any platforming, even for criticism on other subjects, in effect promotes them as people and gives them more viewers to convert new followers on their own platforms. The only platforming that reliably undermines their racist beliefs is one that explicitly and competently discredits them.

In a more recent example, Molyneux was recently booted from youtube: he's losing his platform everywhere. Why give him the attention he wants instead of pretending he doesn't exist and letting him suffocate in obscurity?

Fully Raw Kristina

Promotes John Rose, after having watched him for years and met him.



Video References:





Vegans Racism Against Native Peoples

Vegans are often accused of racism against native people for saying they should go vegan or criticizing traditional practices like hunting and whaling.

Unfortunately these accusations are typically based on fringe idiosyncratic definitions of "racism" that do not fit with common usage and are counterproductive to rational discussion[8].



For example, most of the natives and their allies making these accusations are confusing race and cultural practice, and they see any criticism of culture from an outsider to be racist (even legitimate criticism). The simple answer to this is that it's very clear that most vegans are criticizing ALL cultures for using animal products, and they are not just targeting the cultures correlated to certain races (which might be racist in the true sense) so even on the basis of such a confusion the accusations don't usually make any sense.

In such situations it may be worth mentioning that vegans criticize all cultures, but due to identity politics unless you are a person of color arguing the point is probably futile because the idiosyncratic definition being used has actual racism baked into it (a double standard applies, and criticism of white "settler" cultures is always acceptable and even required, but it's only considered acceptable for marginalized people to criticize marginalized cultures). The Irony is just that: the only true racism present in many of these conflicts is the expectation that certain people be exempted from criticism because of race, and for no other reason.

Due to the vast majority of accusations of racism against native people being completely unfounded (That is, not real racism but based on idiosyncratic definitions which would even call all white "settlers" racists just for remaining on native land where they were born), finding actual examples is a needle-in-haystack exercise. Although thus far no smoking guns of actual racism have been found, there are some issues worth considering/discussing which may look like they could potentially involve some racial biases due to inconsistency (although likely products of ignorance rather than racist beliefs).





Ignorance of Differences

Obviously criticizing somebody's diet is not racism, although sometimes it can be naive in cases of poor food availability where it isn't as easy to go vegan (as in the Arctic circle), and this is where cultural criticism can appear biased by race. The inductive fallacy where we may assume everybody has it as easy as we do is a huge stumbling block to activism of otherwise well off activists to marginalized people who have unique difficulties. Failing to understand this is not racism, but it is ignorant and influenced by privileges of affluence which is correlated to race.

Likewise, targeting native hunting practices may not be racist, but it may be speciesist for vegans to be more concerned about hunted animals than about factory farmed animals: why is a deer more important than a cow? Much anti-hunting rhetoric is based on the target species, claiming that these animals are not meant to be farmed: but neither are cows, chickens, and pigs in any cosmic sense. This is overt speciesism, and when there's no justification for this and species consumed is correlated to race, it can be misinterpreted as racism (and in fact is probably influenced by cultural biases which are correlated to race).

It may also be a problem to be even equally concerned about hunting and some other native practices because it's also very likely that animals living free until death have better lives than those living much of their lives in confinement. It may even be environmentally ignorant to regard these as equal, because these practices are often (although not always) the lesser of evils compared to mainstream animal agriculture.

Dedicating even equal attention to opposing more sustainable native hunting and to animal agriculture seems inconsistent because the return on activist investment is probably not good for opposing native practices, and doing this knowingly would very plausibly be due to racial biases.

Effective altruism means focusing on the most return for our time and money investment, and focusing on small populations that may already be doing less harm per capita than mainstream society is not a good return. Because of this, focus on protesting native activities is probably not evidence based, but rather based on ignorance and influenced by cultural biases. It's true that even being unfairly biased against another culture is not racist, but it is something that can easily appear racist due to the correlations present between race and culture (here the excuse that we focus equally on all cultures doesn't work, because not all cultures demand equal focus for effective activism).





Sea Shepherd

Sea Shepherd is not a purely vegan organization, but the founder, Paul Watson, is vegan and promotes veganism, many members are vegan, and they claim their ships are vegan. Conflict with Native whaling rights may have more evidence of racist rhetoric behind it which cannot be excused purely by naivety.

Sea Shepherd echoed the rhetoric of the organized anti-Indian movement, declaring erroneously that upholding Makah treaty rights would be “tantamount to extra special rights for a group of people based on race and/or culture.” Anti-Indian activists use this same language in their quest to terminate tribal governments and abrogate all treaties.[9]

In no way is a treaty with a sovereign government like giving a particular race within a country special privileges. Saying U.S. law should be enforced upon another country like Japan would be transparently absurd. Considering that an acceptable thing to say about a Tribal government does seem racist, and it is at least relying on racist talking points shared by anti-native White supremacists and white nationalists.

We're still awaiting comment from Sea Shepherd on this.





Vegans Racist Apologetics

Like Tolerating Carnists

In their defense, apologists often make accusations that carnism is worse than racism, and other people are friends with carnists and as such they are hypocrites.

There are some elements of truth to this analogy, but many other points where it doesn't compare and makes for an absurd claim.

1. Harm & morality of racism/carnism

Racism for most people (who hold the view but aren't part of a lynch mob) is in some objective sense probably less harmful than carnism (which is also a practice, which both kills animals and harms the environment which harms people too). However, racism is also arguably more evil than carnism; on a personal level, a racist can be more easily condemned, because it's not a position of social normalcy. There are rare people like Derek Black who grow up isolated in deeply racist subcultures[10] and for them it IS cultural normalcy, but for most racists, particularly the ones who 'figured it out' for themselves like many on YouTube, this isn't the case. People mostly have to go out of their way to be racist, it's not an ideology of convenience, and it's not something people are socially punished for by abandoning.

Carnism, on the other hand, is invisible and culturally ingrained. Most people have no idea that they even hold the ideology, and practice is the cultural default in most parts of the world. It's convenient, and abandoning it often has some social cost; usually in the form of modest teasing, but sometimes exclusion.

A person in the modern world who makes the concerted choice to be a vocal racist is not the same in any sense as a person who fails to make the choice to go vegan (and has probably not been particularly vocal against veganism).

A vocal racist today isn't even the same as a vocal anti-vegan (although this is getting closer). A vocal racist is more on-par with somebody who vocally rejects the notion that any non-human animals have any moral value at all, like the Randian Objectivist who argues it should be perfectly legal to nail a living cat to your wall and there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so. We're talking about overt rejection of socially recognized moral value.

Would you be good friends with that kind of carnist? One who universally rejects animal welfare, or even prizes suffering? Because that's the only appropriate analogy when it comes to questions of human character.



2. Lack of choice

Vegans are not exactly spoiled for choice when it comes to friends. We make up something like 1% of the population, and we don't magically share all of the same interests. You might be able to find one or two vegan friends in a city, but chances are you will inevitably need to be tolerant and include non-vegan friends in your social circles.

The same difficulty does not apply to finding people to socialize with who aren't howling racists. Excepting the more subtle social kind of racism mentioned earlier --which is not the same-- you would almost have to go out of your way to find and befriend vocal racists. You could very easily choose a non-racist friend over one who made advocating white supremacy (or white nationalism) a hobby.

Even from a pragmatic perspective of finding friends, this analogy doesn't make any sense at all, since there are many orders of magnitude of difference between the difficulty of refining those two options.



3. Social effects

This is the only potentially valid point in favor of befriending racists. Derek Black was not deconverted from his racist beliefs by social isolation, but rather by making friends with others (including Jewish friends)[11], Daryl Davis famously befriended Ku Klux Klan members and got them to disavow their beliefs.[12][13]

However, in all of these famous cases it was the social exchange and friendship with one of the "others" that these people hated that did it. And in no cases is there evidence that making friends with yet another white person, who worse still, vocally agrees with their fundamental beliefs at the root of their racism (such as race and IQ) and defends their validity has anything but the effect of reinforcing these beliefs.

The fact that some of the apologists disagree with violence, or have more moderate political positions, isn't particularly convincing as a defense for being part of a support network that nods along with most of their racist talking points and even echoes and amplifies them to a larger audience.

Promoting these racists on your platform is of course the most harmful, but even outside that context failing to collaborate in the social ostracization of racists could be harmful too. If you're not challenging those ideas, and those ideas are themselves fringe ideas, it can remove a powerful motivator for them to change to befriend them at all. Shame and social exclusion is a very strong psychological pressure. Even without argument, it can compel people to change their beliefs (of course we prefer argument, but most societal norms don't work on that basis). Social shaming and exclusion only works when you're in the overwhelming majority, though, unfortunately. Thus: why it potentially works against racists, but not against carnists. Befriending racists sabotages this project, and failing to consistently press argument against their racism (unless you're one of the hated races, in which case your friendship IS an argument) replaces it with nothing.

While almost everybody thinks themselves rational and invulnerable to peer influence, the chances of the racist influencing you should also not be underestimated. Even without argument, being friends with racists (who you may initially have viewed negatively, for good reason) may soften your view on them AND their beliefs. That is: their friendship is effective on making you move toward racism in the way your friendship (unless you are a hated minority or press argument against their beliefs) is virtually useless at bringing them away from it.





False "Facts" Can Be Racist

What is a fact?

There is some dispute about what a "fact" is, and whether a fact must by its nature be a true fact thus making a false fact an oxymoron or whether a fact is merely a statement about empirical reality that is believed to be true but may in reality be false. There are epistemological problems with defining empirical facts as inherently true due to the impossibility of certain knowledge outside of deductive logic which would only mean we do not know if a thing is a fact or not at all. The usage of "fact" to mean a statement that is or is believed to be both truth-apt and true as opposed to a statement that is recognized to be subjective/opinion based is more conducive to understanding of a categorical difference and provides the ability to determine if something is subject to factual criticism.

If facts are only true facts and there is no such thing as a false fact, then the erroneous things racists claim to be facts aren't facts at all and would not be protected or be defensible under the "facts can not be racist" provision. A simple reply of "facts can't be racist, but your claim is false and not a fact, and they are racist" would seem to suffice.

If facts are a category of claim about reality (as opposed to subjective claims/opinions) which may be true or false, then the claim that "facts can't be racist" is more contentious.

True Facts can't be racist

For most people, it's uncontroversial that true facts can not be racist. E.g. "On average but not in every case, people who identify as black have darker skin than people who identify as white" It would be be a very unusual definition of racist that categorized such claims as that.

There's a more complicated subset of fact claims that may be true, but suggest that the person making the claim is a racist because of the context of the claim and an implicit false factual claim that comes along with it.

E.g. "Black people score lower on IQ tests than white people." There are many complex implications of claims like that, and many qualifications that most listeners won't understand -- like that IQ test scores aren't a direct measure of intelligence, that the samples are not necessarily representative, that they don't properly control for things like education or socioeconomic status to give any meaningful comparison between "races".

So while in these cases the "fact" claim itself may not be inherently racist because it's technically correct, in certain contexts the statement of that claim without context conveys the implication that the claim is meaningful or informative in any useful way for understanding race (See Grice's Maxims of quantity and relation[14]), and that implication is a false fact -- one which is racist.

The allegation that a certain fact is racist is often made erroneously because the person making the allegation did not understand the distinction between the technically true fact itself and the implicit false factual claim being conveyed with it due to the context.

On occasion allegations of racism will be about the fact itself in knowledge that it's true because the sharing of that fact may influence people negatively and result in racism, however this is not innate to the fact since different contexts may even have beneficial outcomes (e.g. following the fact about IQ testing recognizing the need for better education in black communities, or to address lead contamination that disproportionately affects minorities). When a true empirical fact seems to reflect poorly on any arbitrary "race" grouping that represents a quality of reality (the source of the disparity) that should be addressed to resolve discrimination originating from a place other than the fact claim itself.

Racism of non-persons

Because racism is a strong allegation that various categories of people want to avoid being labeled with, or conversely want to have the liberty to label as many people with it as possible as a form of attack, the definition has become very politically contentious.

Many modern day conservatives or "alt-righters", and particularly people who any reasonable person would consider racist by any reasonable definition, want to define it so narrowly that ONLY people can be racist and that racism is ONLY based in hate and furthermore is only proven by hatred of ALL people of a certain race -- a single exception of e.g. a black person you do not hate proves you aren't racist. Definitions like this are just as intellectually dishonest as the opposite political extreme in the social justice far-left e.g. white people are innately racist just for being white no matter what they do or believe (comparable to original sin).

There is likely no reasoning with people who refuse to use language honestly and use such unreasonable ad hoc proprietary definitions to suit their political agendas -- people who when presented with a dictionary and asked to use words correctly will claim that using dictionary definitions of racism is racist. It's as highly charged an issue as religious fundamentalism, immune to facts and reason, so most of these conversations should simply be abandoned.

The standard definition of racism

In terms of understanding what racism is, a dictionary will provide a pretty good understanding but lacks the philosophical nuance needed to apply that definition.

Racism may be best understood by analogy to less controversial issues like Speciesism, but in short it relates to a system or structure of discrimination on the basis of race/lineage/heritage (all functionally overlapping or the same thing). Contrary to far-left ad hoc definitions, systems do not need some subjective level of societal "power" to exist: Systems may range from the grand societal context to individual belief systems or even individual self-contained systems of ideas. To be racist these things need only be discriminatory on the basis of race. The distinction that power creates is one of harm; a powerless racism can not cause harm -- this is philosophically significant, but doesn't negate the quality of racism that the system possesses.

There are overt cases that should be very obvious: A law that says black people are slaves and white people are masters. Not a person, but a law, an absolutely and uncontroversially a racist law. On the other side there are also racist laws like affirmative action that allocate certain benefits on the basis of race (there is no such thing as "reverse racism", it's semantic nonsense, discrimination based on race -- any race -- is just plain racism). While a law that enslaves people based on race is certainly bad, it's possible that not all racist laws or even all racist beliefs are bad -- a law like affirmative action which benefits minorities based on race may do more good than harm, and while it's possible that despite the apparent potential to achieve more good via non-racist policies like benefiting urban poor (disproportionately but not exclusively minorities) using race as a heuristic may just be more efficient and ultimately achieve good consequential outcomes with less resource use and less potential for unintended consequences (like encouraging rural poor whites to move into cities to reap those benefits if the law were race-neutral).

The bottom line is that non-person things can absolutely be racially discriminating systems, either externally by controlling society through racist laws, or internally by assigning judgement. They can be racist whether in practice or just a theoretical framework, whether widely believed and in a person or made up and only on paper (e.g. fantasy racism between men, elves, and dwarfs in a fairy tale story). Racism is a quality of relational ideas or concepts, not just people -- indeed, it can actually be much harder to judge people as racists because human beings are complicated mixed bags and may hold racist ideas while simultaneously holding ideas opposing racism. People can be racists by overwhelmingly holding racist beliefs vs. those that oppose racism, but it is the ideas that are believed that are themselves the origin of the racism. If you take away the racist ideas a racist believes or make the racist reject them then the person is no longer a racist. Indeed it is for this reason that outside of public figures it is usually more effective to focus on ideas rather than condemnation of people.

Racism of false facts about race

As discussed previously, true facts can't be racist, but false ones are not immune as such. Obviously a race neutral false fact like "Oranges come from clouds" isn't racist, but essentially any false fact about race is, even when it is on its surface positive. E.g. "Black people are good at jumping and Asians are good at math" implies the fact-claim that Asians are bad at jumping and black people are bad at math in the same way that "black people score lower on IQ tests than white" implies additional things about the relevance of that claim.

Some racist claims may be comparatively benign because either they discriminate on something that is socially or economically of minimal importance (like "white people can't dance"), or because they discriminate against a majority that is in a position of relative privilege and as such do little if any material or emotional damage -- in the same way it's not equivalent to steal $100 from a poor person vs. stealing it from a millionaire where the latter may not even notice. The harmfulness or non-harmfulness (or even benefit in some rare cases) of racist claims is of great importance philosophically and ethically, but doesn't change their racist status.

Hypothetically, if it were possible to have a system of racial differences without discrimination then "belief" might be required as per the second dictionary definition, "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities". This is something that begs the question: Do facts count as beliefs, or are beliefs attitudes people have about facts?

Regardless of whether facts are beliefs, when somebody expresses a fact, that person is expressing a belief in that fact. The defense that "facts can't be racist" would be a very weak one, and the reply "No facts can't, but beliefs can and your belief in that false fact is racist" would be be a pretty definitive counter to semantic deflection like that.

However, there's also good reason to believe that facts are not philosophically distinct from beliefs when it comes to material theories of mind: both represent structures of associative information and logical operators. While words on a page in the form of symbolic semantic structures can't change by themselves as a mind can think, when it comes to a single static snap-shot of a belief in time there's no fundamental difference as to whether it's made up of a series of neural weights or a series of scribbles on paper that carry the same information. They have the same content and can be translated back and forth from one form to another. There's little doubt that if we were to scan somebody's brain and convert it into human-readable semantic structures on pages that snapshot would fill a library of unthinking books, but unless there is something supernatural or in the very least substantially "quantum-mechanical" about a belief as a single instance of thought at a single point of time then there exists no fundamental difference to differentiate facts from beliefs. If true, that would make the distinction one without a difference -- in every meaningful sense they're the same thing, so yes an erroneous "fact" about racial differences even if there were some way to make it non-discriminatory and nobody knew about it or believed it would still be a racist fact claim.

Does sharing racist fact claims make a person racist?

As stated before, people are a mixed bag, and even frequently full of contradictions. A person can believe certain things about race that are racist fact claims while also holding beliefs that oppose racism. Sharing some racist facts doesn't inherently make a person racist overall, even if that person believes those facts to be true. However, when those "facts" are only shared as talking points of racists, there's a strong correlation there that makes it reasonable to make certain assumptions about a person being racist. If every red thing you've ever seen turned out to be an apple and you saw something red it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it to be an apple. Choosing to believe racist talking points without research and to parrot them without qualification is reckless and contributes to the promotion of racism (whether deliberate or unintentional).

Repeating racist propaganda without researching it to find out it's nonsense also suggests a certain credulity of racists and apathy to racism and its effects. It suggests the person making the claims is either:

1. very naive to have trusted racist propaganda without evidence, or has a generally low standard for accepting and repeating any and all empirical claims uncritically.

2. Is otherwise skeptical and has a higher standard for most empirical claims, but for some reason has chosen to give these particular claims a pass due to bias in their favor, which means in short that you either are a racist yourself who is motivated to believe these things without or in spite of evidence, or you benefit somehow from promoting them (such as by having a racist fan base that offers material support).

In short, while it may not be proof that a person is racist it definitely doesn't speak positively to character.