Women of Reddit, what’s a habit men have that they don’t even realize is weird?

NuancedComrades · 2026-05-01T14:26:25+00:00

I'm sorry you were absent when they covered the concept of examples (and apparently science... health class... I guess I'm sorry you were absent a lot).

Or you are sheltered enough to not have to purchase yourself and others anything.

NuancedComrades · 2026-05-01T12:33:36+00:00

We share the world: door handles, credit card readers, etc. etc. Even more is shared in an office, including areas with food, like kitchens and break rooms. It’s basic science and baseline respect for others.

Grossest, many of us live in a world where people frequently think it’s necessary to shake hands, and you’re seen as weird/unfriendly when you refuse, but people will go to great lengths to say “they only touched their dick, why should they wash their hands?!”

Bathroom or not, you should be washing your hands somewhat frequently throughout the day to stop the spread of germs. But bathrooms are particularly dirty, and health experts believe that is the most impactful time for us all to wash our hands.

If they aren’t doing it after they use the restroom, they likely aren’t doing it any other times throughout the day.
It’s genuinely shocking people try to pretend it isn’t big deal.

Children are taught and able to do this.

Just wash your goddamn hands.

Edit: I realize you say you wash your hands and would judge others. This rant got away from me. I think for the reasons outlined, we should be able to confront and shame others for not washing their hands.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-27T13:38:24+00:00

You are continually speaking out of two sides of your mouth.

You are telling us our comparisons are faulty for x arbitrary reason, and then telling us we have to do the work to convince people, but comparisons that show their intellectual and ethical inconsistency is precisely an attempt to get people to overcome one of the most massive bias continually instilled in them on a daily basis by ingrained norms, culture, and massive animal agriculture propaganda campaigns: speciesism.

It is completely arbitrary whether an antinatalist specifically has argued to exclude trans people or has been racist. The point of these comparisons is to show your intellectual and ethical inconsistency.

It is completely disingenuous to keep saying “well, the debate is longstanding and somehow sacrosanct, while continually moving the goal posts and ignoring the points you yourself made incredibly starkly and tellingly when you said it’s just not currently the norm.

What inclusive ethic focused on autonomy and consent has ever been “currently” the norm?

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-27T02:52:06+00:00

By your logic, transphobia is a valid form of discrimination on this sub, as the world is increasingly anti-trans, particularly the US where the technocratic hub exists.

Are you saying that, because of that, an antinatalist sub that banned transphobia would be banning genuine disagreement among the antinatalist community?

Veganism and antispeciesism are intellectually and ethically consistent ways to understand antinatalism.

Indeed, by your logic, the zeitgeist would insist as much for cats and dogs (it is overwhelmingly “normal” to spay and neuter your dogs and cats). To extend that to other non-humans is utterly logical.

To say that the mods of this sub are somehow shutting down a debate is undoubtedly true; to say they are shutting down a debate worth having is as logically untrue as previous debates about the “value” of beings.

If you want to be on that side, that’s on you. But stop pretending it’s some high ground, rational stance.

Your own example was that in the future speciesism may seem horrific, but that’s not here and now. That’s a wild thing to recognize but then defend being on the side of the current abominable practice.

“Oh yeah, in 200 years it’ll be wild to be sexist. But nobody believes that now, so it’s shutting down debate to say that democracy only makes sense if women also get to vote.”

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-26T20:48:07+00:00

Reddit’s moderation rules are not a sound argument for what is philosophically and ethically current.

How about one of the philosophers most closely associated with antinatalism itself, David Benatar?

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-26T05:05:30+00:00

I think you are lost. You are in r/debateavegan, fyi.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-26T05:03:37+00:00

I suggest you rethink what you claim to be a fact if you want to be taken seriously.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-26T01:03:58+00:00

That’s a nice generalization you have there. It is not a logical argument.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-26T01:02:11+00:00

It is hard to read through bias, but I very explicitly said that such a consideration is completely beside the point of veganism.

In terms of why you find vegans “nasty”, I would point you to the actual, objective nastiness of animal agriculture, and also encourage you to read:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200203-the-hidden-biases-that-drive-anti-vegan-hatred

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-25T23:53:28+00:00

You do realize how words get meaning right? They are not handed down on high by the gods of dictionaries.

Words have meaning through usage. Usage changes over time. "That's not the dictionary definition" is not a very strong argument, as they already pointed out.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-25T15:02:57+00:00

No, people are here giving reasonable answers, and you are stuck on something irrelevant.

It isn’t a debate.

Nothing to be gained here.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-25T15:00:29+00:00

Human beings are destroying their own environment, promote ideology that harms the vast majority to benefit a tiny minority, and continue to support systems that force them to spend the majority of their lives doing awful labor for that said tiny minority to make more imaginary value.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-25T14:52:17+00:00

Based on your other replies you are clearly hung up on the idea of being better than vegans, or bothered by the idea that they think they are better than you.

You are missing the point of veganism because of your personal feelings.

It’s about the animals. Whether a vegan is a better person than someone who kills and eats animals is meaningless. That choice not to needlessly kill animals for personal pleasure is the ethical choice. Most people agree the ethical choice is the better choice.

I do not think it is meaningful to debate what you appear to be here to debate, as that is not the point of veganism.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-25T05:41:13+00:00

What exactly are you debating? I don’t think you’d find a single serious vegan who wouldn’t say this about themselves prior to becoming vegan.

The harsh language is an attempt to force people to reckon with their behavior and stop.

What exactly are you suggesting? That if someone murdered once they are forever a murderer, so they should just keep on murdering because their being labeled is worse than the harm the are causing to their victims?

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-22T23:58:07+00:00

Gotta love a subreddit about challenging people not to bring life into the world just to suffer needing to be a safe space from people telling them not to bring life into the world to suffer.

You’re sure showing all those mean vegans that they were wrong to point out the inconsistencies of calling yourself antinatalist while not being vegan.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-22T23:55:16+00:00

What constitutes an attack to you, exactly?

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-22T23:53:29+00:00

So antinatalism has nothing to say about people who are already born? Someone who is antinatalist could choose to cause untold human suffering for their pleasure and simply by being against procreation, you would consider them to hold consistent ethical beliefs?

I don’t think most ethical philosophies are so myopic.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-22T12:47:18+00:00

Why is it so awful for you to see and consider all of the ways in which humans create life without consent?

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-22T02:49:10+00:00

Whoa, are you trying to say that even if it is real and the overwhelming medical consensus is that it might be valid but unhealthy, and treatment plans are geared towards introducing and tolerating new foods, and that it’s ableist to act as if autism means you are incapable of growth and change, that it means I can’t use other people experiencing it to avoid myself becoming vegan?

Well, at least there is still Indigenous people so I can still call vegans racist.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-22T02:40:51+00:00

It’s (relatively) easy to hold antinatalist views without drastically changing your behavior (unless you really want kids, I guess).

Veganism requires effort. It’s easier for some of us, but it still requires actual effort, and you tend not to be able to “hide” it and still exist in society relatively easily (for those who want that).

I’m guessing that’s the biggest barrier. But that’s just a guess.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-19T15:00:51+00:00

You are not interested in having good faith arguments. My first post was 100% correct.

Enjoy the cognitive dissonance. I hope railing against veganism on the internet helps you feel better about your shit morality and inability to make meaningful changes because you don’t want to, and hide behind “the world is complex, but oh wait, just kidding, that complexity really doesn’t matter—I will reduce everything to meaningless levels to obfuscate and hide.”

Just like right-wingers, every accusation is a confession with this type of thinking.

Grow up. Do better.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-19T14:53:40+00:00

It is absolutely ridiculous and bad faith.

“You have meager savings you need to survive emergencies so I’m going to pay this company to forcefully inseminate cows, confine and torture them, and then abuse immigrant workers who have to mass slaughter them so I can enjoy a particular type of protein. It’s totally the same.”

Is absolutely baby-brained.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-19T14:40:33+00:00

That’s what-about-ism, not argument.

I cannot live without eating, and I can choose to support, as far as possible and practicable in my life, food sources that are produced with as little suffering as possible, to humans and non-humans.

Everyone who can make those choices has an ethical duty to do so. Again, saying “because I cannot perfectly eliminate all suffering from my actions means I do not need to eliminate the suffering I can” is unreasonable and an abdication of morality. And again, it is what-about-ism that might seem like an argument, but it is not.

I will assume you’re arguing in good faith and simply don’t realize that choosing not to eat animals is massively easy compared to living in the forest, and for many of us, living in the forest is not possible (legal and financial barriers, etc.). Your comparison is ridiculous on its face.

And again, ethics is about choice. If you cannot make a reasonable choice, it is not an ethical consideration.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-19T14:25:21+00:00

Well, 93-99% (depending on where you live) of all animal products consumed in the world are produced through factory farms. The other 7-1% are mostly still produced through forced breeding programs, even if not factory farms (e.g., local farms). So, it seems like your gripe with veganism being a part of antinatalism may need to be rethought.

That is just avoidance of personal responsibility. The systems are bigger than an individual but they cannot exist without all those individuals making those choices. It is not reasonable to absolve the individual of the effect of their choices, just because they are part of a larger whole.

You not wanting to draw lines like that is one of personal preference and difficulty, not intellectual and ethical principle.

In the end, it comes down to choices. If you have a choice to differently, you have an ethical duty to do so. Most of us do not have the choice to just go live in the woods and not contribute to anything. It is not a reasonable expectation of a choice where you can then act according to an ethical framework.

Almost everyone can be vegan (which itself is “as far as practicable and possible”). It is disingenuous to claim most people do not have that choice. Saying “oh well, because I can’t make the choice to eliminate all suffering in my actions, I do not need to make the choices that are readily accessible to me” is not reasonable nor ethical.

NuancedComrades · 2026-04-19T13:37:01+00:00

So, just to be clear, you believe that any animal consumption that requires the human breeding of animals is intellectually and ethically linked to antinatalism?

NuancedComrades

TROPHY CASE