> i don’t understand why you think this is a huge gotcha ... most vegans are oriented around harm reduction

Avoiding a true scotsman fallacy aside, the OP was strongly centering their argument on "no violence against animals". If you deem pointing that out a gotcha, so be it.

> either way, the causal chain between me and the rotisserie chicken is far shorter than between me and the tiny bit of cobalt in my iphone.

I think assuming that the length of the causal chain lightens one's responsibility is a fallacy. By that token a drone operator would have less ethical responsibility than a boots-on-ground marine, a stockholder would be less culpable than a laborer for the consequences of market activity, and consumers would always be the most innocent as by definition they are the end users of any causality chain.

People's tendency for going after only what is most salient creates the most difficult ethical problems.

> there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism

What do you mean by that?

It's usually a refrain that comes as a leftist critique of liberals. Generally liberals believe that more thoughtful consumption can solve ills of capitalism while leftists do not. The same idea gets recycled without the critique to mean "nothing you do will reduce the harm you intend to reduce so you're doing that for no reason."

He means that nothing should exist, because life means death, existence means suffering. I honestly don't see the relation to capitalism because consumption is literally just spending for utility and consumption can be absolutely anything, it can be sustainable or not.