I don’t deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like “bloodmouth”). In this particular case, “carnist” is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.

Like I said in the other thread, it’s describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. “Omnivorous” was proposed as an alternative, but it’s initially understood as “digesting plant and animal matter” in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.

There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.

Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I’m myself eating meat so I don’t want to draw parallels here.

Okay I had a look and, you’re right. Apparently it’s an academic word in sociology meaning “prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” So it’s not the practice, it’s the way of thinking.

Alright, that’s pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting “plant and animal matter”, but I don’t know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.

Then what word would you like people to use for “person eating meat as part of their alimentation”? I ask in good faith, I’m really curious to know your opinion.

I don’t think that “meat-eater” is necessarily better than “carnist” 😕 Or a negative like “non-vegeterian”? A bit of a mouthful.

“Bloodmouth” is clearly trying to be a slur (although it’s the first time I see the term). “Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.

Words exist to convey meaning, that’s all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that’s for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.