I really like the ideas behind this "infoveganism", but lord do I hate the name. I think the author chose it because in his mind veganism has to do with health. Nothing wrong with that association (i don't think there's anything wrong with veganism, either), but in most people's minds veganism = restrictions mixed with a sense of superiority. And the thing is, there's nothing about demanding that actual content be present in your media that places a restriction on what content enters your brain. As the author points out, the content you are presently getting is what's restricted by virtue of being so barren of fact.
So if you were to stick with the food metaphor (not that I think that's a good idea), veganism doesn't real work. It's more like adding 13 essential vitamins and minerals to your otherwise toxic fruity pebbles.
If you want to stick to food, I'd go with "whole story movement" or "slow story movement" or something. This seems to be about putting personal effort into getting a better result for yourself, vs. making sacrifices for the good of others (largely the point of veganism, as far as I can tell).
That does indeed seem to be the sense in which infoveganism is meant: You consume information according to a strict set of ethical standards (which you feel is superior) rather than what is most pleasant or convenient. Just like with veganism, it is mostly defined by what you choose not to consume, but it is also important to replace the "bad" things you discard with enough good things. It isn't just about "actual content being present in your media" any more than veganism is about veggies being present in your meals. It's about only taking in good content and eschewing content which (by the philosophy's standards) is bad.
When I first heard it, I didn't like it because I thought it was based on the popular conception that vegans practically starve themselves. But having read more about it, I think the concepts are indeed similar.
Vegans consume food according to what is pleasant within their ethical standards. Yes they refuse more food due to ethical boundaries, but that doesn't mean they've fundamentally changed how they consume food.
Meat-eaters for example mostly refuse to eat human meat, but choose to eat any other kind of meat that is pleasant--cannibalism excluded.
This standard is strict as well, there isn't any leniency allowed for cannibalism in the common day.
I think you're using a different definition of "pleasant" than I was. The idea of something being ethically pleasant is odd to me. I basically meant "tasty." Some vegans find, say, fried chicken to be quite tasty, but they refrain from eating it nonetheless. The same cannot be said of human flesh for most people.
As for the suggestion that vegans are no more dedicated to their diet than anyone who does not eat human meat, I find that frankly bizarre. Refraining from cannibalism in a society where cannibalism is illegal is extremely different from avoiding all animal products in a society where animal products are nearly ubiquitous. People who don't eat other people are essentially going with the flow. (This is not to say that they would be cannibals in a different situation, just that few are even presented with the choice, and choice is an important distinction here.)
I couldn't even figure out what the word was til about 20 seconds of staring at it. It would be better as info-veganism, I was trying to parse it as in-fov-egan-ism, or in-fove-gan-ism and such.
Actually no, I think it has to do with both health and ethics, as sticking to a plant based diet involves both. Our information diets have as much social ethical consequence as our food ones do.
But for those of us who are more than happy to enjoy meat, veganism often doesn't mean either health or ethics, it means people who go without some of the best food and often feel superior about it.
Not saying that this view of veganism is correct or fair, just that that's the immediate connection.
I don't think its an unfair commentary, since even the poster you're responding to suggested veganism has much to do with ethics.
Presumably those who feel they are behaving ethically by committing an action, also feel that those who do not follow their standards are less ethical. That's the feeling of superiority that wafts off vegans.
I'm not entirely sure it's a requirement, personally I feel it's more ethical to cycle than to drive a car - but when I do cycle, I've never felt superior to anyone at all.
Then again, I regularly use taxis, get lifts... so maybe I am to anti-car-cyclists as people who occasionally go a day without meat are to vegans.
This is a contradiction. Either you believe the action is ethically superior or you don't. It makes no sense to believe it's ethically superior except when you do it. I would very much hope you believe you're doing the right thing.
I think you're confusing the belief that your actions are superior with the action of being a dick. They're not directly related — it's just that the latter is likely to reveal the former.
Is it impossible to think that something you do is a more ethical thing to do than something someone else does without a.) judging the person who isn't doing it or b.) at least thinking that their decision not to do it is wrong?
Sure. It's more ethical for an self-professed alcoholic to not drink, as their alcohol consumption likely affects others. That said, it's easy to not drink alcohol and not judge others for drinking it.
That said, do that too often, and you're just around a bunch of annoying drunk people...
Exactly! Just like people who aren't infovegans think that infoveganism just means eschewing mainstream media and feeling superior about it! It's a perfect analogy!
So if you were to stick with the food metaphor (not that I think that's a good idea), veganism doesn't real work. It's more like adding 13 essential vitamins and minerals to your otherwise toxic fruity pebbles.