From vegoutmag.com
By Jordan Cooper
The loudest voices in the diet wars are fighting a battle most people never signed up for
Spend five minutes on social media and you'll find someone insisting that plants are poison or that meat eaters are destroying the planet.
The vegan versus carnivore debate has become one of the internet's favourite blood sports. Influencers build entire brands around attacking the other side.
Comment sections turn into war zones. Everyone seems absolutely certain they've found the one true way to eat.
But here's the thing. Step away from your phone and walk into any restaurant, grocery store, or family dinner.
You'll notice something strange. Almost nobody is actually having this fight. Real people are just trying to figure out what to make for Tuesday night.
The gap between online diet discourse and actual eating behaviour is enormous. And understanding why that gap exists tells us a lot about how the internet distorts our perception of, well, everything.
The algorithm rewards extremes
Social media platforms don't care about nuance. They care about engagement. And nothing drives engagement like conflict.
A video titled "Why I Eat Mostly Plants With Some Flexibility" gets scrolled past. A video titled "Veganism Almost Killed Me" gets millions of views. The incentive structure is clear. Go extreme or go home.
This creates a selection effect. The voices that rise to the top aren't representative of how most people think or eat. They're the ones willing to stake out the most provocative positions.
Research on social media and political polarization shows that platforms systematically amplify content that triggers strong emotional reactions. Diet content follows the same pattern.
The carnivore influencer eating raw liver and the vegan activist throwing paint aren't typical. They're outliers who've learned to game the system.
Most people are quietly flexible
Here's what the data actually shows. The vast majority of people don't identify with any strict dietary label. They're not vegan, carnivore, keto, or paleo. They're just eating.
Maybe they're trying to have more vegetables. Maybe they're cutting back on red meat for health reasons. Maybe they had a burger yesterday and a salad today.
According to Gallup polling, only about 4% of Americans identify as vegetarian and 1% as vegan. These numbers have stayed remarkably stable for decades. Yet plant-based food sales keep growing.
What gives? People are adding options without subtracting their entire identity. They're not joining teams. They're just making choices meal by meal.
This quiet flexibility doesn't make for good content, so you never hear about it online.
Identity gets tangled up with lunch
Something weird happens when diet becomes identity. Suddenly, what you eat isn't just about nutrition or taste or ethics.
It becomes about who you are as a person. And when someone challenges your diet, it feels like they're challenging your entire sense of self.
Behavioural science calls this identity-protective cognition. We defend beliefs that are tied to our group membership more fiercely than beliefs we hold loosely.
Online diet communities create strong in-group bonds. The carnivore folks have their own language, heroes, and enemies. So do vegans.
Once you're in, any criticism of the diet feels like a personal attack. This is why these debates generate so much heat and so little light.
Nobody's actually trying to learn anything. They're trying to protect their tribe.
The middle ground is boring but real
I was at a dinner party last month where someone mentioned they'd been eating less meat lately. Nobody gasped. Nobody demanded an explanation.
The conversation moved on to whether the pasta needed more salt. That's how most food discussions actually go in the real world. Undramatic. Practical. Human.
The internet makes us think everyone is either a militant vegan or a steak-only purist. But most people live in the messy middle.
They care about animals but still wear leather shoes. They worry about climate change but flew somewhere last year. They had oat milk in their coffee and chicken for dinner. This isn't hypocrisy.
It's just being a person navigating a complicated world with limited time and energy. The online debate pretends these people don't exist, but they're actually the majority.
What we lose in the noise
The real cost of this polarized discourse is that it drowns out useful conversations. Questions like: How do we make plant-based options more accessible?
What farming practices actually reduce environmental harm? How do we balance personal health with planetary health? These are genuinely complex issues that deserve thoughtful discussion.
Instead, we get dunking and gotchas. We get cherry-picked studies weaponized by both sides. We get people so exhausted by the fighting that they tune out entirely.
The loudest voices end up representing nobody but themselves while the rest of us just try to figure out what's for dinner.
The debate becomes performance rather than communication. And performance rarely changes minds or moves anything forward.
Final thoughts
Next time you see a heated vegan versus carnivore argument online, remember what you're actually watching.
You're seeing two people who've built their brands on conflict, performing for an algorithm that rewards outrage.
You're not seeing a representative sample of how humans relate to food. You're seeing the extreme tails of a distribution, amplified beyond all proportion.
Real people are more interesting than this. They change their minds. They try new things. They make exceptions for their grandmother's recipe.
They don't need to win arguments because they're not in a war. If you're reading this and feeling exhausted by diet discourse, here's your permission slip to opt out.
Eat what makes sense for your life, your values, and your body. Let the influencers fight it out. The rest of us have groceries to buy.
No comments:
Post a Comment