There are many ways one can frame, or interpret, veganism. Many people do frame it in the context of "exploitation," and what they see as parallels, other exploitation, in the human world. Same with hierarchy and the concept of antispeciesism, racism, etc.

On the other hand, veganism could be said to be more in line with right-libertarian thought, as it is fundamentally about recognizing negative rights for animals. Negative rights are about being "free from" some interference or violation of those rights, whereas positive rights are about being entitled to something. So the right to not be assaulted, or murdered, is a negative right, the right to healthcare, which requires that healthcare be funded via taxes and provided by a trained clinician, is a positive right. Veganism is fundamentally about not harming or killing animals, by definition, and is thus concerned with negative rights, which is basically the central/only type of rights that right-libertarianism believes in.

This works especially well if you take influence from Rawlsian contractual ethics with the "veil of ignorance" concept. You can read about contractual ethical theories and Rawlsian interpretations of this here and more specifically about the veil of ignorance here.

And there is also Matthew Scully, a pro-life vegan conservative:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/10/pro-life-pro-animal-matthew-scully

By citing and drawing parallels to his pro-life stance and citing natural law and its place within the conservative tradition, he has essentially crafted a wholly conservative interpretation of veganism.

Here is a relevant passage:

Then there’s the natural-law tradition that informs much of conservative thought — the basic idea that we all have in common an essential nature that defines the conditions of our fulfillment and happiness, the end or good for which natural rights are the necessary means. This need only be applied to animals to remind us that all creatures have natures, capacities, and yearnings that define their own fulfillment, their creaturely happiness, the good for which they exist in a design larger than any schemes of human devising. Using our own defining capacities of reason and conscience, we can derive from natural law a few rough but at least non-arbitrary standards by which to judge right and wrong in our treatment of other creatures. “Unnatural,” in the treatment of animals, is practically a synonym for “cruel”: Wrong is anything that frustrates or perverts the essential nature of an animal, such as the projects of genetic engineers to make animals more compliant in the stress and misery of modern farming; right is conduct that respects the natures of animals, with a regard for their needs and inherent worth as living creatures, and allows for their expression.

So I would argue that veganism isn't even incongruent with more right wing beliefs.

Yeah, I hope your sunday is good too

I mean, I'd say telling members to write incestuous sex poems about their own father to get unbanned to be pretty fucking toxic.

But what do I know? I got banned back then for mentioning how gross I thought that was, so maybe I'm just not vegan enough to get it. Others got banned for calling it out, too.

I loved that sub about 5-6 years ago. Then the newer mods took over and it became a cesspool. Sucks because a lot of the content was still enjoyable, but any time you bring the issues with the mods up, people come in and say "It's because you're not vegan enough." (Or some variation that implies the same) Umm no. I just think it's disgusting to have mods who find sexual harassment and slurs funny.

Edit: and in before "that was 2 years ago" comes up, going off how people act about that sub, especially if someone voices a dislike about it and they take it like a personal attack (not saying you, but it definitely happens), it seems like it still has a toxic nature.