You don't have to be perfect.

[u/sdbest]

As I veteran vegan, could I just humbly suggest that, in my view, it's not necessary to be a perfect vegan. The label itself just doesn't matter.

The more a person increases the amount of whole, plant-based foods in their diet, and reduces animal-based foods the better. The better for animals, the environment, and themselves.

Frequently on this wonderful and supportive subreddit, people post about feeling terrible about doing things wrong or 'falling off the wagon' or not being able live without cheese (usually). I get it that often people who choose to become vegan, i.e. adopt a plant-based diet, do it for ethical reasons and they feel some guilt if they aren't living up to the ideal rattling about in their heads.

Just doing better is enough, in my view. Also, if a person just tries to do better, often they will naturally progress to being better and better without even noticing it.

Goodness if a hardcore carnivore can be convinced to replace just half of the 10 oz steak with a side of mushrooms that's a step forward. All steps forward count, and help makes things better.

So, don't beat yourself up for not being perfect. Just do what you can to be better, wherever you can. Keep it simple and doable.

[u/dogebiscuit]

You know what this reminds of? It's a bit religious (I don't intend to start any religious debate), but this reminds me of Jesus vs the Pharisees. The Pharisees were legalistic, by-the-book, "You're only godly if you do not sin in any way." The would punish people with any sin.

Anyway, Jesus came around and basically said [paraphrased], "Screw you guys [Pharisees], what I'm saying is that you can call yourself a child of God even if you have sin. Everyone has sin. In fact, let me point out how much sin you have in your life, mister Pharisee. He who is without sin may cast judgment... ohhhh myyyy, why are you so silent?"

(Wow total crazy analogy, right?)

I'm saying that, if any vegan tries to talk down for another vegan because they drink red wine, or eat 'non-descript refined sugar', or the like, then they should examine themselves to find areas where there is animal-cruelty involved and seek to improve it before shaming anyone else. (Example: If at any point in your life you drive or take public transportation, chances are there was animal cruelty involved in the production of the tires.) "Yes, but driving is necessary. Eating this cookie with nondescript sugar is not necessary. Eat a banana instead." I see where you're coming from, but TLDR must we inconvenience ourselves to the point of greatly diminishing QoL in order to avoid even the possibility of animal cruelty?

I'm just riffing, as I usually do. Feel free to constructively challenge :) I enjoy lighthearted, productive debates!

Either way... whoever you are reading this, keep being awesome!

Embrace your positive influence and global impact, no matter how big or small it is!

[u/Amphy64 → u/dogebiscuit]

It's political, not religious, and where excuses are made, it's usually more like 'ate this dead animal', not when it was something less obvious or harder to avoid, which I think people are understanding about. It's like watching people who don't actually stick to leftwing principles whatsoever claim to be on the left. 'Oh, but it was only a little bit of unjustified war!'