Soycrates

3 Reasons Why “Bloodmouth” Must Go.

For some reason that I honestly can’t properly discern, phrases like “bloodmouth” or “carnist” still show up within circles of vegan advocates on the internet and in real life. While I don’t disagree that the death, depletion, and misfortune caused by animal industries is a fair reason to be enraged, nor do I advocate for a touchy-feely flowers and smiles approach to advocating and activism, I do think that there are a number of reasons why the term “bloodmouth” should be thrown out of the vegan’s dictionary.

1. You’re flattering them. When a meat eating human hears the phrase “bloodmouth”, what do you think is there response? Is it shame? Sadness? Sudden realization of animal suffering and what’s on their plate? A revulsion or disgust of animal products and byproducts? Or, is it more likely that in a world filled with Hollywood hunky vampires and badass stalkers of the night in novels that they are flattered? Often you will hear the common facultative omnivorous human compare themselves or make analogous use of the lion, example: “Lions eat meat, you don’t hate LIONS, do you? So why hate me, I’m just doing what a lion does, circle of life!” The comparison to a lion makes the individual feel fearsome, powerful, awe-worthy. Calling someone a bloodmouth is more likely to give them a big, goofy smile as they pretend they are one of nature’s mighty predators or one of myth’s fanged foes. Bloodmouth sounds metal as fuck, and what we really want to convey is the weakness of caving to societal pressures, the weakness of unnecessary harm, the weakness of the human ego in the face of our environment. 
2. It is an inaccurate portrayal of the issue. Why is meat eating bad? As many a vegan will know, it is for the exact same reasons why dairy, eggs, circuses, leather, and animal testing, among other cruelties, are wrong. The support of animal cruelty reaches much further than just what goes into your mouth.  Animal cruelty, as well as the other prominent issues veganism addresses such as environmental sustainability and world hunger, pertains not only to blood spilled in slaughter, but to the many facets of widespread exploitation. “Bloodmouth” seems to only refer to those who consume red meats, so it may give the impression that less bloody animal products (like chicken, yogurt, cheese, fish, eggs) are “less cruel” while this is certainly not the case. It pinpoints only one instance of cruelty while ignoring the rest, often allowing vegetarians who contribute to animal cruelty to feel as if they are exempt, somehow different from their meat eating friends.
3. It’s an inaccurate portrayal of the “food”. Most meat eaters consume processed animal products, drained of blood and removed of any signs of previous life. Many facultative omnivores will laugh in your face if you tell them that not only is there still traces of blood in their meal, but also feces and the likely excess of antibiotics and growth hormones that were injected into the animal for profit, not for health. Their logic is if they can’t see it, it simply isn’t there. “Blood? Do you SEE any blood on this food after it’s cooked?” Most meat products are composed of flesh, but even the consumer has a hard time acknowledging that they are putting flesh and fat of another once-living animal into their stomachs. I mean, you could try to call them “fleshmouth” for more accuracy, but a) everyone’s mouths are kind of already made of flesh (and blood) and b) sounds way too much like Smash mouth, it’s just silly - I expect everyone to break out singing “All Star”.

As for “carnist”, which I mentioned earlier, it avoids many of the problems that arise with “bloodmouth” but still serves to alienate the receiver with unnecessary lingo, and is likely to be received as an insult which disrupts your ability to actually grab the listener’s attention. Pragmatically, I don’t see the word’s use and do not understand why phrases like “meat eater”, “facultative omnivore”, or “animal consumer” needed replacement.

Overall, I’m glad to see that only a sparse few use these terms unironically, but am sad to know that most non-vegans DON’T realize that the majority of vegans don’t use these terms, nor invented them.