"The Rational Vegan" is anything but rational

[brimstoneSalad]

This is a fairly new site, and most of you are probably unfamiliar:
therationalvegan.com

So, aside from making the two common mistakes of:

1. The deontological issue of equating Use to Abuse and "Exploitation" as inherently wrong without considering actual harmful consequences.

2. Fixating on justice and the very subjective concept of "oppression", and likewise falsely equating those to good and harm respectively without evidence of consequence.

...they are also both anarchists and anti-capitalists (a combination which I have critiqued at length in the past).

This bias is incredibly apparent upon visiting the site, given the definitions they provide to the user:

Anarchism
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, but several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

Is there any evidence that this is even possible, or that any human society has ever functioned like this? No.
This is a faith based position, not one founded upon reason or evidence, and as common, Anarchists offer no alternatives.

Regulated capitalism and Democracy are shitty systems which happen to be the best we have.

I try to stay out of politics -- while I don't agree with them, I can respect anarcho-capitalists, socialists, democrats, republicans, communists, whatever -- to at least some degree because most of them propose something resembling a system and present some evidence and arguments for what they want to achieve.
I have nothing but contempt for anarchism, though, which is nothing more than a dogma that aspires to tear down systems without presenting viable alternatives (society, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and power vacuums will be filled with violence and tribal/gang rule). I have even less respect for anarchism than I do for the dogmatic Islamist position that enacting Sharia law will result in a comparable paradise (at least there's some precedent, however questionable).

They also advocate criminal action and condone violence and extremism (through traditional "direct action"). Here's another one of their twisted definitions:

Reformism
Reformism is the belief that gradual changes through and within existing institutions can ultimately change a society’s fundamental economic system and political structures. This hypothesis of social change grew out of opposition to revolutionary socialism, which contends that some form of revolution is necessary for fundamental structural changes to occur.

Reformism is to be distinguished from pragmatic reforms: reformism is the assumption that an accumulation of reforms can lead to the emergence of an entirely different socioeconomic system than the present-day forms of capitalism and democracy, whereas pragmatic reforms represent attempts to safeguard the status quo against fundamental and structural changes.

Now if they called their site "The Anarchist Vegan", this would all be... tolerable. It's juvenile and irrational, but whatever; not everybody has a strong grasp on economics and politics, and these ideas are appealing to certain demographics (angsty teens who are rebelling against anything and everything and like punk rock?).

What they're doing is something insidious, though, and I think VERY bad for veganism. Much worse than the transparent nonsense of Freelee or Durian Rider.
By holding themselves up as rational vegans and pretending to be unbiased and even handed and to respect logic and evidence, and yet anchoring the ideas to their anarchistic and anti-capitalistic biases in very eloquent and well spoken ways (with such a slick and attractive/professional site), they create the appearance that veganism relies on dogmatic adherence to these irrational concepts (which, like deontology, are easy for anybody with a basic education in economics or psychology to debunk) and as such present the strongest argument for the philosophical illegitimacy of veganism I've ever seen.

EDIT: By the way, I have read ALL of their articles, and listened to ALL of their podcasts. I'm not drawing conclusions from their definitions alone.

[knot]

Is there an inverse relationship between calling yourself rational and actually being rational? First rationalwiki and now this

The ideas of "use" being bad is probably tied into the anarchism. The youtuber a-bas-le-ciel seems to have some of the same ideas -- for example that owning pets is always bad because the moral baseline for animals is the natural wilderness

(society, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and power vacuums will be filled with violence and tribal/gang rule).

Is there some theory or rule that describes this? It does seem that in all human activity there must be some kind of centralized power structures or there will be anarchy in the dictinoary definition

[Volenta]

I'm going to respond, mainly because I think you went a little bit too far here and there in your critism, not necessarily because I agree with them.

1. The deontological issue of equating Use to Abuse and "Exploitation" as inherently wrong without considering actual harmful consequences.

2. Fixating on justice and the very subjective concept of "oppression", and likewise falsely equating those to good and harm respectively without evidence of consequence.

I think these are good points of criticism.

...they are also both anarchists and anti-capitalists (a combination which I have critiqued at length in the past).

Do you have a link? I'm interested in reading those. I know you criticized right-wing libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, but haven't yet seen you criticize left-wing/traditional anarchism.

Is there any evidence that this is even possible, or that any human society has ever functioned like this? No.

What about revolutionary Spain during the Spanish Civil War? This was a major realization of an anarchist society.

This is a faith based position, not one founded upon reason or evidence

There actually is some evidence, but I agree it's not much. Mostly because room for experimentation of alternatives is minimal, certainly the case after the collapse of communism. Experimentation with workers' cooperatives is growing though (a central notion anarchists propose), where some good evidence is available for the positive effects it brings.

Either way, just because there is not much data available, it's inappropriate to dismiss it immediately. Rather, why not support experimentation initiatives to see what works and what not. This is the foundation of scientific progress.

I do have some real problems myself because of Steven Pinker's work (The Better Angels of Our Nature), on what he calls the pacification process. Basically seeing the state as a solution to the security dilemma. But there is a weakness in his data; and that is that he only compares modern states with primitive non-states. It is some real evidince against anarchism, but incomplete. It would be complete if a comparison was made with modern states with modern (meaning, being industrialized and having gone through all of Pinker's other processes/revolutions) non-states. I cannot claim to know the answer, since I haven't seen any empirical data for that, and making inferences would be inappropriate (a hasty generalization in this case).

and as common, Anarchists offer no alternatives.

You will hear mostly anarchists criticize problems with our current society (which you don't seem to like, because it's rebellion and we already have the best we can have), precisely because there is evidence for the problems of our current society. Proposing alternatives is much harder, which is why they are more reluctant doing that (which you also don't seem to like, because of the evidence issue). They do offer alternatives though, mostly in broad lines because it's hard to sketch out an ideal society beforehand, because -- and I've actually always seen them recognize this -- it needs evidence to make such claims.

Regulated capitalism and Democracy are shitty systems which happen to be the best we have.

If you think it's shitty, why so are you quick to dismiss the possibility of an alternative then? Just because it's the best we currently have, doesn't mean something better isn't possible.

I try to stay out of politics -- while I don't agree with them, I can respect anarcho-capitalists, socialists, democrats, republicans, communists, whatever -- to at least some degree because most of them propose something resembling a system and present some evidence and arguments for what they want to achieve.

You don't think anarcho-capitalists' belief in the almighty invisible hand of the free market is not founded upon reason or evidence?* And republicans aren't extremely far removed from reality that it's not even funny anymore? I agree with you that both give reasons to justify their ideas. Anachism is contrary to your claim really not different (really, just read the literature). So you either don't really know much about anarchism, or are showing your biases and political color.

*I'm not saying that this is the case, since they might just hold different political ideals than I do (not based on ethics for example). And that's the thing with politics; the problems you're trying to address or ideals you want to realize might differ. We're not living in a technocracy (although it sometimes looks like it).

I have nothing but contempt for anarchism, though, which is nothing more than a dogma that aspires to tear down systems without presenting viable alternatives (society, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and power vacuums will be filled with violence and tribal/gang rule).

Wait, what? Then you've completely misunderstood anarchism. You're using a definition like "abandon the state, and see what happens", more in line with the popular usage of the term to mean "chaos". That's not the definition these people or any anachist is using. The reason why anarchism is extremely heterogeneous is because they all propose a different vision of what a stateless society could look like.

I have even less respect for anarchism than I do for the dogmatic Islamist position that enacting Sharia law will result in a comparable paradise (at least there's some precedent, however questionable).

So, how well-read in the anarchist literature are you actually? It's fine to disagree (I also disagree with many points), but such claims are just ridiculous.

They also advocate criminal action and condone violence and extremism (through traditional "direct action").

Contrary to what popular opinion thinks, most anarchists condemn violence. Advocation of criminal action is limited, mostly in opposition to state policy which could be called criminal in itself (that's why I'd rather speak in ethical terms by the way, in which the words like 'criminal' and 'illegal' are pretty useless). Direct action might sometimes be ethical, so it's hard to dismiss it altogether. Most clear cases are when it happens in oppressed Islamic countries, or Gandhi's movement. There is a bias that when it happens in other countries it's OK, but just not at home.

Here's another one of their twisted definitions:

Reformism
Reformism is the belief that gradual changes through and within existing institutions can ultimately change a society’s fundamental economic system and political structures. This hypothesis of social change grew out of opposition to revolutionary socialism, which contends that some form of revolution is necessary for fundamental structural changes to occur.

Reformism is to be distinguished from pragmatic reforms: reformism is the assumption that an accumulation of reforms can lead to the emergence of an entirely different socioeconomic system than the present-day forms of capitalism and democracy, whereas pragmatic reforms represent attempts to safeguard the status quo against fundamental and structural changes.

That's actually interesting, since most anarchists (in contrast to Marxists) are against reformism. The second paragraph about pragmatic reforms is a bit weird definition indeed, though.

Now if they called their site "The Anarchist Vegan", this would all be... tolerable.

Well, that's actually a point I can agree with.

What they're doing is something insidious, though, and I think VERY bad for veganism. Much worse than the transparent nonsense of Freelee or Durian Rider.

I too like to keep subjects separated. But I can't help but notice your double standards (given that you actually also think that it's subjects should be separated, or is that not the problem?). The way the atheist community has gone off-track doesn't seem to bother you at all, because you seem to agree with them. I absolutely don't want to be associated with them anymore, and think this politicization (especially identity politics) is VERY bad for atheism. What do you think?

By holding themselves up as rational vegans and pretending to be unbiased and even handed and to respect logic and evidence, and yet anchoring the ideas to their anarchistic and anti-capitalistic biases

Do they really have a bias or just hold a position you don't like? Or do you think holding a position leads to bias? They probably are speaking just as honest and convinced of something as you are, and yet might be completely open to discuss/debate these disagreements, so I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

they create the appearance that veganism relies on dogmatic adherence to these irrational concepts

I highly doubt anybody thinks you have to be an anarchist or deontological to be vegan by reading/listening to their stuff. In the first episode they seem to talk about some proponents of veganism holding a different opinion, so listeners can know that there are other reasons out there.

(which, like deontology, are easy for anybody with a basic education in economics or psychology to debunk)

Psychology? How exactly does psychology relate to this?

You do know by the way that contemporary economics has a strong bias (to use your terminology) to neoclassical economics, which rests upon assumptions certainly not everybody agrees on. There is lots of criticism and discussions going on within and outside economics. So I don't think talking about the possibility of alternative economic models can be so easily dismissed.

[brimstoneSalad]

Is there an inverse relationship between calling yourself rational and actually being rational? First rationalwiki and now this

There seems to be, but I think that's mainly just because very few people are rational, but most people think they're rational. Like seen in the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who are rational may be less likely to proclaim it from the rooftops.

The youtuber a-bas-le-ciel seems to have some of the same ideas -- for example that owning pets is always bad because the moral baseline for animals is the natural wilderness

I heard about that video, I'm watching it now. He seems to lean deontological, or at least is inconsistent/weird about his ethics. Maybe this stems from sympathies with anarchism, I'm not sure.

Is there some theory or rule that describes this? It does seem that in all human activity there must be some kind of centralized power structures or there will be anarchy in the dictinoary definition

It's just human nature. Tribal systems form naturally due to our biology (we see similar systems in our closest relatives, and all social animals); in order to fight against that, you need external power structures to inhibit or replace it.

[brimstoneSalad]

It was discussed in this thread: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=17&t=175

What about revolutionary Spain during the Spanish Civil War? This was a major realization of an anarchist society.

Do you mean to say anarchism is a state of perpetual civil war?
That was not an anarchist society, these were short term organizations that just disrupted existing power structures, and only existed in the context of fighting against something else. Much like the Occupy Wall Street movement: Occupy only exists if there's a Wall Street to fight against.

Experimentation with workers' cooperatives is growing though (a central notion anarchists propose), where some good evidence is available for the positive effects it brings.

Some may, but communism is a legitimate political position (a problematic one which needs work, but a coherent and theoretically possible framework).
China, for all of its failings, has some passably successful collectives in the context of larger regional republics (which in theory supports those collectives against outside force/influence), and we see what happens when those larger systems fail to support those collectives.

Either way, just because there is not much data available, it's inappropriate to dismiss it immediately. Rather, why not support experimentation initiatives to see what works and what not. This is the foundation of scientific progress.

I'm all for experimentation in limited contexts -- not experimenting with an entire nation outright; this is what Mao's problem was with the Great Leap Forward, and how in the name of scientific social experimentation millions of people died of starvation because of its inherent tendency to corruption (I don't fault Mao, but I fault anybody would would attempt to do the same thing after we have already learned from this mistake).

A system has to have strong checks and balances in place to prevent corruption, and those systems have to be well tested and idiot proof.
If we found a better system with smaller scale experimentation, we could support its application to larger systems experimentally, then larger ones if those were successful.

It's all well and good to hypothesize. Hypothetically, something like a meritocratic communism may be the best system, but in practice this fails due to corruption and human nature. If it doesn't work, it's not a system we can yet hold up as functional.

It would be complete if a comparison was made with modern states with modern (meaning, being industrialized and having gone through all of Pinker's other processes/revolutions) non-states.

The trouble is that there aren't any, and never have been. The rage against authority that sees short term voluntary organization (which accomplishes nothing but destruction) doesn't qualify for an alternative to the state unless we're invaded by aliens, creating the impetus for us all to voluntarily cooperate against a common foe larger than our own enmity for each other. Even so, totally speculative; such conditions themselves are always short lived (usually because the conflict is unstable and doesn't last, but would probably also burn out on their own).

I'm not saying I'm not open to alternatives, but anarchism doesn't present one.

You will hear mostly anarchists criticize problems with our current society (which you don't seem to like, because it's rebellion and we already have the best we can have)

The best we have, not the best we can have (If I said it was the best system we can have, that would be unsubstantiated). I don't know what the best system we can have is. If anarchists were scientists who formed social models and did legitimate research and experimentation in closed systems, I would have nothing but respect for them. But that's not what they are, and that's not what they're doing.

Proposing alternatives is much harder, which is why they are more reluctant doing that (which you also don't seem to like, because of the evidence issue).

I'm fine with hypothetical alternatives, but a hypothesis is not enough to change society on. Mao taught us that.
I want them to do legitimate social research and SHOW us something better. They need to put up or shut up. Complaining without offering solutions -- and worse, actively destabilizing our current solutions -- is not productive.

They do offer alternatives though, mostly in broad lines because it's hard to sketch out an ideal society beforehand, because -- and I've actually always seen them recognize this -- it needs evidence to make such claims.

Then they should be focused on research, and collecting that evidence. Until they have it, they should stop spouting their ad hoc hypotheses as if they are solutions to anything, and saying that there are functional alternatives to our current models (we don't know that there aren't, but we don't know that there are either).

If you think it's shitty, why so are you quick to dismiss the possibility of an alternative then? Just because it's the best we currently have, doesn't mean something better isn't possible.

I'm not saying something better isn't possible. But anarchism is itself not a system. Their propositions are inconsistent, and when they do make them, they are better described as something other than anarchism. Most of them are -- when they're honest -- advocating some form of democratic/communistic/libertarian/republics and assorted mixes thereof.

In order to prevent the rule of capitalistic economics, you need a very strong centralized authority. I'm not saying that's wrong or that it can't work, but it's not anarchism, and it needs evidence.
I would also say it's very clearly something we're moving toward by regulating the economy.
Their idea that "reformism" is some kind of blind dogma, and that you can't create graduated reforms into whatever system you want is absurd, a conspiracy theory, and essentially equivalent to the Intelligent Design proposition of irreducible complexity in concept.

You don't think anarcho-capitalists' belief in the almighty invisible hand of the free market is not founded upon reason or evidence?*

I don't know what you're asking. Anarcho-capitalism can work (although repugnant in consequence). These people are classical anti-capitalist anarchists, which makes no sense at all. To regulate economy to the point of undermining natural capitalism, you need a strong central authority.

Anachism is contrary to your claim really not different (really, just read the literature). So you either don't really know much about anarchism, or are showing your biases and political color.

I'm familiar with their claims, but they're inconsistent.

The reason why anarchism is extremely heterogeneous is because they all propose a different vision of what a stateless society could look like.

Down to the one, which is not a system. They're incredibly inconsistent.

So, how well-read in the anarchist literature are you actually? It's fine to disagree (I also disagree with many points), but such claims are just ridiculous.

Sharia law is actually a coherent political system. Anarchists don't even present that, and yet they're equally convinced they're in the right, and that the outcome will be great.

Contrary to what popular opinion thinks, most anarchists condemn violence.

I was talking about these people specifically = "The Rational Vegan".
Anarchists as a group are inconsistent on this point.

Direct action might sometimes be ethical, so it's hard to dismiss it altogether. Most clear cases are when it happens in oppressed Islamic countries, or Gandhi's movement. There is a bias that when it happens in other countries it's OK, but just not at home.

I don't think it's OK in other countries either (or historically).

Issues like these are systemic; kill a dictator, and another appears in the power vacuum.
The only reason Gandhi's movement "worked" is because the British weren't quite the tyrants they were made out to be, and they backed out: And yet, in retrospect, this was probably a bad thing for India.
When you're dealing with true tyrants, civil disobedience yields no such results.

The need for violence is only proportional to the tyranny, which is precisely where that violence is ineffective unless you have a vast majority on your side, and if you do have the vast majority on your side, violence is no longer necessary (although the threat of violence may be; look at the history of the monarchy in England).

That's actually interesting, since most anarchists (in contrast to Marxists) are against reformism. The second paragraph about pragmatic reforms is a bit weird definition indeed, though.

They seem to be quite against it. It's a pejorative definition (I thought the wording and connotation was clear, maybe I misread its tone?).

I too like to keep subjects separated. But I can't help but notice your double standards (given that you actually also think that it's subjects should be separated, or is that not the problem?).

I'm not sure what you mean. If Anarchists want to do their own thing away from veganism, I only have as much a problem with that as any other violent ideology that threatens the world. This is unique in that they're trying to hitch veganism to their ideology.

The way the atheist community has gone off-track doesn't seem to bother you at all, because you seem to agree with them. I absolutely don't want to be associated with them anymore, and think this politicization (especially identity politics) is VERY bad for atheism. What do you think?

I don't know what you mean. The new atheists are often anti-theists in addition to being atheists, and I don't think it's necessary good to associate that with veganism since it could put off a lot of people.
I prefer a more diplomatic approach where possible.

Do they really have a bias or just hold a position you don't like? Or do you think holding a position leads to bias?

The nature of the position they hold (it being a faith based position) tells me it's a bias, and not simply being honestly convinced of it by evidence or reasoned argument.

If one of them were a capitalist or Democrat or Republican or something, and the other an Anarchist, then I could at least appreciate the diversity of opinion there, and be less worried that they were representing veganism as a position that requires one be an anarchist.

might be completely open to discuss/debate these disagreements, so I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

Given their age and that they're still anarchists -- and have created an echo chamber between themselves -- I doubt that.
If they were open minded, they would be presenting more mature and nuanced political opinions by now.

Maybe they've just never been confronted about their anarchism in a reasonable way, but that's very difficult to believe.

I highly doubt anybody thinks you have to be an anarchist or deontological to be vegan by reading/listening to their stuff.

Did you listen to Hypecream, or read the article on DxE?

Psychology? How exactly does psychology relate to this?

Sorry, psychology relates to anarchism, not deontology. Deontology is debunked by basic logic, Anarchism is also an empirical position, and its falsehood relies on basic human nature and the behavior of social and economic systems.

So I don't think talking about the possibility of alternative economic models can be so easily dismissed.

It's fine to talk about the "possibility", like we can talk about the "possibility" of Thor and Odin being real demigod aliens from planet Valhalla that visit Earth and scan the minds of brave warriors to reincarnate on their home world. Fine. But believing it is another matter entirely.

We can't dismiss those kinds of possibilities entirely either, but a person who believes them on faith is not reasonable.

It's also fine to talk about real economic models, like communism, and examine them in their modern and historical contexts to see how they behave -- we have real data on these -- and theorize on how to fix them.
To be meaningful exercises, though, theorizing must become experimentation. I don't see armchair politics as very useful, and trying to enact untested reforms on an entire society or just tear down existing systems with no tested plan for what will replace them is overtly harmful -- it's lunacy.
I can forgive Mao his death toll, because he did what he did in ignorance, and without the historical context to prove how dangerous it is to experiment on such a large population. It's much harder to forgive modern anarchists for making the same mistake; it's reprehensible ignorance of history.

[EquALLity]

It's pretty disappointing how prevalent dogmatic vegans are in the movement.

Since veganism and atheism both involve challenging beliefs of the status quo and opening your mind, I think it puts people in danger of being 'so open minded their brains fall out'.

What do you think the solution is?

[brimstoneSalad]

It's pretty disappointing how prevalent dogmatic vegans are in the movement.

Since veganism and atheism both involve challenging beliefs of the status quo and opening your mind, I think it puts people in danger of being 'so open minded their brains fall out'.

What do you think the solution is?

It's hard to say, because nobody owns "veganism"; there's not central authority to rein in these radical fringes.

As far as "vegan" goes, I don't think there's any other way than to just criticize each other like there's no tomorrow. Argue and debate, and hopefully the best ideas will survive to see the next day.

Some groups (like Mercy for Animals) just try to avoid the term, and advocate vegetarianism or a plant based diet to keep away from the stigma associated with it. And maybe we do just have to re-invent, or find new terms, to help people better understand.

After all, the term "vegan" itself was just made up recently too.

[brimstoneSalad]

It would be interesting to see if they would offer a defense of their site.
Maybe if a few people send them messages, they'll come and address the criticism:
http://www.therationalvegan.com/contact/
That contact requires an e-mail address, I'd recommend using a throw-away address like mailinator so you don't get spammed.

It's possible (although unlikely) that I've misjudged them and underestimated their open mindedness (although in my experience, career anarchists aren't usually half as open minded as evangelical Christians, but perhaps this is my own bias). I'd be pleased to be proved wrong.

[miniboes]

Brimstone, I've read that you try to stay out of politics multiple times. Why?

[Jebus]

Since veganism and atheism both involve challenging beliefs of the status quo and opening your mind, I think it puts people in danger of being 'so open minded their brains fall out'.

What now? Why would that be? Are you suggesting that people who spend more time challenging the beliefs of the irrational are more likely to become irrational compared to those who don't?

What do you think the solution is?

[/quote]

Solution to what? What is exactly is the problem? It is not either rational or irrational. It goes along a spectrum, and guess what: although not all vegans and all atheists are above the rational average, vegans are on average more towards the rational end than the non-vegans and atheists are on average more towards the rational end than theists.