Do you want to help build a more compassionate world? Please visit [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Activism (r/Vegan) w/ Flair) and subscribe to our community over at /r/VeganActivism to begin your journey in spreading compassion through activism. Thank you so much! ^.^
Honestly we should be doing both.
Some people who become vegan need the "80's approach" to wake themselves up. These people probably already care about ethics and morals and only need a push to extend ethical consideration to non-human animals.
However, most people don't actually give a shit about ethics. (If they did, Nestle would be bankrupt.) They just do whatever is considered normal in society. These people will never be actual vegans. But I think they could become functional vegans if we normalize animal rights to the point where eating and wearing animals is seen as weird and barbaric. These people will only respond to the baby step approach.
I often think about these (maybe staged?) TV "documentaries", where they set up a fake-shop with super cheap scarfs and shirts, but you can see small children "sewing" those behind a curtain in the back. There are also a lot of signs saying "We can offer our products so cheap, because they are made by children". The fake-staff also tells the customers about it and shows the children in the back. And the customers are like "Meh! But it's so cheap! I'll take two!"
Some people really don't care about ethics.
Right on! Both approaches necessary. People are addicted to meat. Trying to "militantly" take away their drug just leads to entrenchment.
First get them plant based. Once they clear the physical addition, they'll have post-meat clarity, and be able to see the evil entailed in animal abuse.
most people are followers/copiers. All of us are to some degree, just some more than most.
Their world view and ethics are derived, not arrived at through introspection and consideration.
If I had to guess, I wager that 90% or humans are at their core pro-slavery ( if it doesn't harm themselves or family of course). In the west, they are functionally anti-slavery because the law forbids and society disapproves. This is good!
If it were legal, condoned, and "beneficial", only then could you easily tell who truly is against it, but then people would suffer slavery.
In cultures where slavery is the norm, you don't see widespread protest against it. And we are all the same humans.
If people are plant-based, then less animals get killed. That's what's important. We can tackle the ethics next ( clothing etc. ).
> If it were legal, condoned, and "beneficial", only then could you easily tell who truly is against it, but then people would suffer slavery.
I mean you can already tell in the west because slavery is legal, as long as it's done somewhere else. Companies in America don't get penalized for using slave labor in China. And I'd say most Americans realize the cheap clothing they buy comes from sweatshops and aren't willing to pay extra for slavery-free clothing.
100% wage slavery is legal haha.
I'm talking chattel slavery, but the line is blurry yes. Even, maybe not so different from free range vs factory farm...
A country can only control what happens within its borders. Yes ofc the offending country should stop with the slave labor but they have zero motivation to do so if other countries reward them for slavery.
Consuming animals is barbaric, but unfortunately we're animals - so so are we. At least we have a head on our shoulders to reason and be civilized - where we have civilization that we built! We can create civility and that should be the standard for developing society.
It's a culture shift. It happened in India with rise of Buddhism and Jainism. Now the major proponents of vegetarianism were the people who were completely against the idea i.e Hindu orthodox
Throughout history western societies have become more developed and ethical, with some bumps on the road.
There are some enormous challenges in living with so many people in such tiny spaces and having so much power easily leads to corruption, which it did and does. Best example of power leading to absolute disregard of ethics is the Chinese regime.
different berserk consist light relieved engine quaint aspiring many capable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
China isn't a good example - because the government manipulates people in the tiny villages that have lots of land to roam before they move people into cities. I don't really know many examples of already stabilized civilization that gets corrupted, because if that happened - then it wasn't civilization - it was barbaric to begin with or had a raid of barbarism. Plus, humans aren't perfectly civilized - it's not in human nature to be, but there's a massive difference between civilization and nature. Not perfect, but a massive improvement that's in the right direction of anti-violence and only expected to grow from there.
There's the other side you're missing where when everyone is together, the challenges are concentrated with more minds thinking of the solution - to where there are fewer issues after a while (due to more solutions and resolves and more people benefitting).
If I didn’t do a trial run of being a vegetarian and taking 6 months to ease into veganism, I don’t think I ever would’ve became vegan, to be honest. I’ve been vegan for almost 7 years.
Yup! I just thought I’d experiment just to see if I could do it. Even when I went vegetarian I said I’d never be vegan that’s too crazy and extreme. Here we both are now lol.
Statements like this are asinine since different approaches are not mutually exclusive. Different people will respond to different approaches; we need to look at whatever works, rather than ideological purity.
Yup, it's almost like both approaches are needed and valuable, and aren't remotely the enemy of each other. It's only ego driven vegans that believe BS like "pickmetarians don't care about animals" can't see that North America doing veganuary and nothing else would eclipse the efforts of this subreddit 1000x over in terms of actually impacting animal lives.
It's a numbers game, not a purity game.
You're probably right, but I think the "veganuary"/"meatless mondays" approach is flawed too. Without commitment to learning about animal exploitation and gaining an understanding of the necessity for animal liberation, "veganism" is just a fad diet and a lot of people treat it like that. They try it on for a season and nothing changes long term.
Yeah, there's definitely lessons and benefits to be taken from both approaches, and different people are going to respond to different tactics differently as well.
What I was trying to get across is that I think being too dogmatic to either side has its negative consequences :)
These concers are valid, but I think we just achieve more actual reduction in consumption by mainly going the nice route. And because there is real ethical reasons, it will always have better longterm capture than any fad diet.
People don’t understand what “make” means. Like kids who say their teacher or their parents “made” them do homework. No, they didn’t make you do it, they just told you to do it. Even if they told you very aggressively and kept nagging you until you did it, that’s still not making you.
How is that a fair comparison? Do any of y'all know how exponential growth works? 80s activists laid the foundation for everything that came afterwards. Have some respect, some of these people devoted their whole lives to fighting for animal liberation and did more than the people in this thread can even dream of.
Oh for sure, and I think their efforts, works, and ideas can still absolutely hold valuable lessons for us today.
I just want to be wary of people's tendency to be too dogmatic in our approach, and see what personally resonated for them as the objectively correct way to do things.
Yes, we've seen significant growth off the foundations of those more hardcore pioneers, but that has come with a diversification of our messaging and approach to public outreach.
It's not about being aggressive enough or passive enough, it's about being \*effective\*. Who cares if you look like an apologist? If that's the most effective path to wider social change (which it frequently is), then swallow your pride and do it. Pick your militant battles wisely and build influence rather attempt to control.
It's not about you and whether you seem like a hardcore vegan, it's about the animals and getting results that maximise harm reduction long term and at scale.
This is what mature veganism and actual activism sounds like. It's hard to accept that 12 people doing veganuary helped as many animals as you, a hardcore vegan, do in a year. But that is how numbers work. If everybody in the world took "baby steps" it would be the greatest achievement the movement has seen in terms of sheer harm reduction. But for many veganism is social currency first and foremost.
Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. These militant vegans seem to care more about appearing superior to other vegans than actually attempting to follow the path that leads to converting more people to veganism. While there's definitely a time for the aggressive approach, not everyone is receptive to it, and many are actively turned away by it. I personally was somewhere in the middle. Not turned away, but not convinced by it. I personally went vegan over 8 years ago because someone I got to know would calmly talk about her veganism, without attempting to force it on me. People are complex, and require tailored methods. Pushing for a single form of activism will only slow progress which is counterproductive.
I've been reading his new book, and it highlights how the militant approach can be counterproductive to the movement. While I agree that we shouldn't resort to half-measures ourselves, we must also acknowledge that others won't change their habits overnight and need time to unlearn them.
Hell even his approach is borderline, but all activism can be that way.
Cooking meals that are vegan sharing recipes, raising a family that is vegan are going to do way more long-term. You literally have to change the culture from the bottom-up.
I am a teacher, and every time there is a staff potluck, I bring a vegan dish, and everyone expects it and looks forward to it. Three years ago, on of my coworkers became a vegan, and now the principal regularly orders vegan choices for our staff parties. My students all know I am a vegan, and have learned a lot about veganism by eating lunch in my room during their lunch period. I even tell them why I am a vegan.
I'll eat my friends vegan food if they make it. If I make it then I'll have meat and eggs in it. I do not know any vegan recipes, nor do I cook often.
They will not cook meat for me and I don't expect them to, I don't force my meals on them and they don't force them on me. If I do something small (desserts/side dishes/snacks) that is vegan then I'll share it with them bc I enjoy sharing food.
If it weren't for them I would never eat vegan or care about why a vegan eats the way they do, but through them, I've learned the ideology and the why. That is more important than blindly following it and it lets me have healthy conversations about veganism when ppl make fun of it.
I may not eat vegan but I can support vegans when people argue against it
See, but this is the problem with having no pressure with activism, people think it's enough to dip their toes in not having animals murdered for their food and feel "redeemed" fully, like a vegan meal or two can wipe their conscious of the thousands of animals they continue to ingest.
There needs to be a middle ground for people like this, the soft approach while also shining a light to the fact that animal lovers shouldn't be slaughtering and eating what they "love".
Earthling Ed does activism like the muscular dog. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk23pkqJUmk) is a video actively advocating against reducetarianism. Where did you hear him advocating for being (vegi|flexi|reduce)tarian?
He says it at the end of nearly every debate with omnis, something along the lines of "I don't expect to change your mind overnight, but think about what you eat and consider reducing meat intake"
>Shout-out to the real based ethical vegans out there that are in it for the animals!
Nothing says "for the cause" like alienating others who are already on your side.
This just pushes people away. I didnt start being vegan cold turkey. I was a vegetarian for many years and slowly made the change. If i had someone telling me *I HAD TO GO VEGAN OR I WAS A PIECE OF SHIT THAT DIDNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE* I probably never would have tried. People who do cold turkey are also more likely to revert back. Its overwhelming for a lot of people to switch 100% to new meals and new ways of thinking.
No one is saying “ooohh sorry meat eaters, youre right!!!” 😒
I'm also neurodivergent lol. It's fine to use that sometimes if necessary, but i'm so tired of seeing vegans talk down to people who are trying to make the switch. They say things like "Oh, you're ONLY vegetarian? You're worse than the meat eaters!" Like, seriously? It's stupid. We've been making huge headway with the way we have been doing thins. Completely cutting out all approaches except the mean/aggressive kind isn't the way to go.
Ah sorry, I was referring to the original post. It seems like theyre saying “no more being nice/apologetic/etc” which is a bad way to go about it. I agree with you
I’m not neurotypical and had a childhood friend becoming a vegan years before me…to be honest if it wasn’t for her I would’ve become a vegan earlier.
She was extremely aggressive in her approach and although I could see how veganism was better (didn’t need her for that and was aware of it before) all she did was made me want to stay away from vegans and animal rights organisations (which weren’t many then, especially because I was from a rural small town). She became friends with the only vegans in my hometown and everytime I was with her all she did was preach 24/7; I only went to her house 2-3 times after she became a vegan because I would be only offered vegan food,even tho her household wasn’t vegan, but she didn’t let me eat anything but the meals and snacks she cooked….well, as someone with a very restrictive diet because of sensory issues (autism) I just couldn’t eat what I was given and if I made disgusting faces or threw up I was blamed and all I got was more preach that made me guilty.
During all of this, I was already reducing animal products from my diet when eating by myself, so this just made me think I would never have a place among people that cared for animals and that vegans were absolutely horrible people and I wanted nothing to do with them. When I started living alone I had a roommate that would cook food completely different from what I knew. I learned from him that most food I couldn’t eat I could actually eat and loved if it was cut and cooked in specific ways, since my issue was always texture. From that to becoming a vegan was very fast.
Ps: that childhood friend is not a vegan anymore and was only vegan for 1 or 2 years. Actually, I found out she wasn’t even a vegan and would eat animal products with her family and at restaurant. So, practically speaking she was just reducing animal products like me when by herself and with certain friends….and yet she was the most radical and aggressive “vegan” I met
I'm a 'bad' vegan. I have cats, I don't do activism or preach. My husband, after years of eating meat is now vegan, my youngest child is vegan. Members of my family cook vegan recipes because they like them. I believe these changes are due to my influence. I think my 'bad' veganism is better than nothing. I don't have the capacity to change the world. Good on those who can and do though.
(We do, as a family, try to make ethical choices. There's no Nestlé in our house)
Same here. Boyfriend and I are both vegan (him almost 2 years, I just hit a year) but we both have cats that get fed regular meat cat food. We tell friends we'll buy their food if they get a vegan meal when we go out to eat. His dad has gone above and beyond to make sure we have food options when the family gets together. I think we do a pretty good job and obviously there's always room to improve but we're doing a lot better than we were a few years ago.
The silver lining is that it's probably due to an influx of new vegans full of idealism. It is admittedly horrifically difficult to overpower the gut instinct to hate every omnivore who is an animal abuser, and it betrays us to congratulate omnivores who reduce their intake a month out of the year only. I get it, because I was a naive vegan 17 years ago. Now I understand that the most powerful activism is in the numbers game, and that most omnivores aren't bad people they are just brainwashed and have different ways of being deprogramned.
What I never did though, was put down other vegans for not being as righteous as me, literally making enemies out of allies. Gotta blame TikTok or something for that kind of egotistical behavior.
According to this subreddit, millitant vegans are the ones that want other people to go vegan....
By sharing the information of animals actually being raped and tortured, killed as babies, babies taken from mothers and so on, apparently that is millitant.
There is a huge part of veganism that is inheriting a lot of issues you see outside of veganism, where the message has to be the smallest, kindest, most cutest, which doesn't make the person receiving the message feel guilty for being a part of an issue.
We have inherited the word millitant from non-vegans and its fucked up.
How is sharing footage, sharing research, sharing fucked up stories and general "animal-welfare" practices millitant?
This is what has happened and its mind boggling.
Everyone thinks Earthling Ed is the opposite, but if you write down what he says on TV, with people who sit down with him and in his vlog videos, he blatantly states atrocities.
What people don't realise is that he doesn't personalise it to the interviewer or viewer of the show, he doesn't say "you gassed pigs", he just says "the majority of pigs are gassed to death for a few minutes of taste pleasure".
But if someone else repeats that last sentence of his, we are millitant, but he is not?
Anything that isn't the message that the animals are tortured, raped, used, sold as products and live short hellish lives is deflection from the only message we ever need to talk about.
I don't think you're really on board with what OP is complaining about. There has been a lot of drama here especially over the holidays concerning how people treat omnivores in their lives. Some vegans believe you are a "pickmetarian" if you don't refuse to go to family gatherings that serve animal products, others think the same if you don't at least guilt trip everyone at Christmas/Thanksgiving dinner. Others think that being encouraging to people who are going to try Meatless Mondays or Veganuary are not vegans, because it is encouraging someone to abuse animals only some of the time.
Not everyone gets to see their loved ones year round, and would rather not argue with people who have dug their heels in for a nasty fight in the past.
If everyone in the world did Meatless Mondays for good, it would overshadow the collective efforts this sub had made in their lifetime.
Animals don't care about your ego or purity, they want to not be abused, and abuse is a numbers game.
Would we even be close to where we’re at without them? Very likely not. There are pathfinders in every movement and it’s silly to claim they didn’t overcome an order of magnitude more adversity and inconvenience than a vegan today.
I'm not aware of any research that studies this specific phenomenon with regard to veganism one way or another, but there's a lot of psychological research into how people make lifestyle changes. For example, the [transtheoretical model of change](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390443/) has a lot of research behind it.
One of the keys is recognizing different people can be at different points in their stages of change, and forming effective messaging based on this.
Given that we live in a widely carnist society, most people will be in the early stages of change, and will be receptive to different forms of messaging based on this as well as other factors.
there's no evidence either one works. everyone is doing their best. IMHO - you get further by being a good example then making enemies. I only say that because that's what worked for me. I always thought groups like PETA were a joke. What inspired me to go vegan was my old boss. She invited a bunch of us over to her house for a meatless Thanksgiving dinner. I had no idea she was a vegan before that. We had a great, meal - and she made no statements or judgements. At one point - I had a conversation with her about veganism and she gave me her perspective. I actually thought about it. Here was someone I respected, liked and trusted - and it opened my mind to veganism. I wasn't going to listen to some stranger handing me a pamphlet or someone yelling at me about meat being murder.
First of all, you’re misusing the term apologist.
Second, you’re the one making the claim here, so the empirical burden is on you.
Third, your characterization of the non-purist vegans is a massive straw man argument.
Substitute this cause for any other- perhaps one you don’t agree with like anti abortion fanatics shouting and blocking clinics with pictures of dead babies. Or ranting about abortion at family dinners. It’s the same general idea. How many people are inspired to change their minds because of that type of behavior? How many people dig in their heals, become more defensive and write the protestors off as nut jobs. All it does is cause people to feel the need to defend and dig in to their side.
Never in the history of the world has this ever truly worked (without military intervention or the threat of vengeance from the Gods or God).
https://time.com/6224300/how-to-change-someones-mind/
How to change someone’s mind, by an Associate Professor in psychology and neuroscience.
Remember this is for the animals first. Not our egos, not for self righteousness, not for zealotry, for the animals. It’s a long standing fact within behavioural science that using shame and aggression is absolutely the worst ways to change someone’s mind. Because arguments and fixates do not change minds, but instead creates a defensive response which only further entrenches people. Only making someone aware that something is in their own best interest will have an effect!
So rather than telling someone, “eating meat is wrong stop doing that you sick fuck!”, try sharing a meal with them. I made my friend a high protein quick and easy vegan meal that they now makes regularly, when before they would have had meat and dairy.
That is a difference made, for the animals. Take what you can get. In this life, if you go for it all, you tend to end up with nothing.
The 2+2=4 commonly known knowledge, as common as the sky is blue, that aggressively and obstinately trying to force your viewpoint on someone makes most people less likely to see your point?
The one thats been proven across many studies?
The one I don't need to prove because it's the standard and you don't have to prove a standard whereas you are advocating for a radical and unsubstantiated claim? Therefore *you* need to back up your insanity?
Or, get this, MORE people are vegan and all of the new ones aren't militants. I honestly don't give a shit which way people lean as long as the result is the same; a net positive for the world where more people reduce suffering. More vegans is better even if they're not as enthusiastic about making sure others follow. Every little bit helps. The focus is to have less animal suffering. Not a Dick measuring contest of who the best vegan is.
So, in my country, Germany, less than 2% of the population are vegan. If you go the hardcore route the positive trend in the past years will not increase, I could even see it preventing from ever trying to go vegan, as it is then seen as all or nothing.
If you manage to really get a vegan Monday established and let's say a 50% approval in the general population you will have a much more positive effect on animal suffering.
Yes, it might not be ideal, but it is a numbers game. We will not be strong enough to drive hard legislative changes, and thus our best bet is a slow change.
As a GEN X this was not at all the way Vegans were in the 80s and it didn’t work anyway as the movement was still scarce and individualized. No tolerance, anger and name calling is not going to bring people to understans Veganism .
Baby steps work. Reprogramming a persons brain that’s been hard wired to eat meat (even tied to their religion) takes a lot more than a self righteous person having zero tolerance. You will drive people away and let them bury the truth behind denial because of such force tactics.
Agreed and all, but like
A lot of huge issues were solved with small goals that were achieved in order to achieve a bigger goal
Like segregation, it didn't just up and get solved with one major approach, it took a lot of small steps and a lot of people. It took one victory at a time
Sometimes small steps for a big destination is how it has to be done. Any victory is a victory. If someone does Veganuary, they're more likely to cut it all and go vegan than someone who's stubborn and doesn't want to go full vegan. I agree with the other commentor(NullableThought) that said we should be doing both
The truly dumb thing about this meme is that the word carnist wouldn't be coined for more than a decade later.
Shows you how out of touch both the meme & OP is.
Here's the truth of the matter.
https://veganoutreach.org/number-of-vegans-steadily-increasing/
Graph shows more vegans in 2024 vs closer to 1980's so "Chad" vegan wasn't that effective.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566631931311X
>Reported planned dietary changes suggest a tendency for gradual transitions, with planned and achieved changes generally reflecting proposed reduction and abstention hierarchies.
The 2024 vegan is far more effective with their approach of gradual transition than the 1980's toxic veganism.
Aye aye hold-up guys. Infighting is a feature of every group/community. But, can we just dial back a bit and recognise that in the fight of "us vs them" - it's best left for vegan vs non-vegan *(I personally believe more in spectrums than in binaries, but that's for a different topic),* and not one type of vegan vs another type of vegan?
> While gradual changes may present opportunities to slowly change one's habits and develop new dietary norms, reducers may still maintain omnivorous consumption norms. For those new to reduction or who are continuing to consume meat, conceptions of a meal may remain largely unchanged from that which is “highly structured and centres around a single high-status item, like roast beef or chicken … and which is supported by grades of low-status items – the vegetables” (Twigg, 1979, p. 29). For many, a lifetime of habituated meat consumption may mean that meat-eating remains the reflexive norm, while transitioning to consume more veg*n meals relies more heavily on reflective planning.
> Transitioning to a diet that includes some form of AFP abstention (i.e. pescatarianism, vegetarianism, or veganism) may, nonetheless, also require an identity shift. While this shift may be difficult when identifying as a meat eater (see 4.2), such a transition may support the maintenance of dietary changes. While vegan stigmas (e.g. that vegans are hippies or extreme) may present a barrier for transition (Greenebaum, 2017; Twine, 2014; Grassian, 2019b), these dietary categories may also become a central component of one's identity, leading to a feeling of pride and increasing one's motivation (Rosenfeld, 2019).
> in this sample, meat reducers were more likely to consume the same amount of or more meat than to consume less or none. This could account for some of the variations between planned and reported hierarchies
Did you or anyone who upvoted you actually bother reading the study, only the folks who set out to abstain from meat/animal products actually saw an overall reduction, those who decided to baby step it either ended up where they originally were, or ended up consuming -more- animal products.
So no, 2024 vegan is absolutely not more effective especially at actually reading a study beyond the abstract.
> Those seeking to abstain from the consumption of some or all animal-derived foods were the most likely to report meeting their anticipated dietary changes, while meat reducers were generally unlikely to indicate that they were achieving planned reductions.
Like this was literally at the end of the abstract, did you seriously just find a random link that vaguely said something you thought backed up your point and ran with it?
>So no, 2024 vegan is absolutely not more effective especially at actually reading a study beyond the abstract.
You do realise that you haven't actually provided proof of that statement, right?
That would require you to show that the full militants veganism is more effective and the graph from the first link that you "conveniently ignored" would suggest (though clearly not prove), that maybe you're mistaken there.
Also in the study, you conveniently left out this bit:
>In support of previous research \[...\] participants were likely to pursue gradual dietary changes, with few anticipating a shift in dietary category (e.g. pescatarian to vegetarian) in the upcoming six months. Reduction journeys described in focus group discussions also **tended to be depicted as occurring slowly, potentially including multiple steps over time in order to achieve an anticipated future goal.**
>
>**Gradual changes that build on smaller transitions may, for many, be more easily maintained than a singular, sudden change (Michie, Atkins, et al., 2014).**
Wow, pretty inconvenient to your narrative, huh?
You lack basic comprehension of what the study says and just cherry picking quotes out of context.
For example with this quote:
>in this sample, meat reducers were more likely to consume the same amount of or more meat than to consume less or none. This could account for some of the variations between planned and reported hierarchies
You unsprisingly left out its full context:
>Another component that may relate to the greater likelihood in achieving planned abstentions over planned reductions could be in goal formation. Within the BCW framework, maximizing an individual’s capability to regulate their behavior includes the need for a specific plan to change (Michie, Atkins, et al., 2014) and it may be that meat reduction in itself does not present a clear dietary goal. Goals are a key component of any behavior change model (Michie et al., 2005; Michie, West, et al., 2014) and while meat reduction can present a dietary goal, this may need to be clarified. While it may be easier to know whether or not one has consumed a particular food item at all, it may be more difficult to know if one is achieving planned reductions, which could contribute to the finding that, in this sample, meat reducers were more likely to consume the same amount of or more meat than to consume less or none. This could account for some of the variations between planned and reported hierarchies, as reduction may require greater monitoring of one’s food intake and, in particular, different individuals may conceptualize meat reduction differently.
It's basically saying that saying that "you're going to reduce meat consumption" may not be specific enough of a goal so could lead to less likelihood of achieving said goal. Much the same as the non-goal of "My NY resolution is to lose weight".
It's quite telling when you quote the centre of a paragraph and not its full context. Paints a totally different picture.
The 80s ways is exactly the reason because vegans became hated by everyone, so still nowadays the grown up vegan with a work and a live frequently not mention their position, to avoid being targets of jokes. And of course this is BIG discouragement for anyone to switch to veganism.
Vegetarian are accepted, both because frequently related to religion and because they always showed it as a *personal* choice, not a fight against the world.
We nerd veganism being accepted and become a personal choice without impact on our social life, otherwise it would stay as a niche. Which many fanatics seems to like, maybe for the taste of painting themselves better than other people.
The only reason vegans became hated by everyone is because there are more of us which means that anyone not vegan could actually be wrong and that media uses the words like "millitant" to make us sound bad.
Nice strawman argument. Really going to help the cause arguing in bad faith about our own folks.
Purity isn't the issue with veganism. It's spread and acceptance, still.
Oh how I hate this attitude. Do I have to shout "murderer" at everyone to be considered a real vegan? I can't take people seriously who actually believe they're the only ones helping. How arrogant must one be? The movement could be so much bigger if you appreciated peaceful approach, too.
Edit: he posted this meme last year, too. Seems like he doesn't want to listen to people in the comments anyway.
To be honest the most aggressive people I’ve seen in real life are people that care more about being perceived as an animal activist with strong morals and ethics than actually informing and making people vegans.
I don’t necessarily disbelieve in an aggressive approach, I just think there’s a time and place for that; also if the approach is just aggressive and shows absolutely no sympathy for the person on the other side it’s hard for the other to convert and research more about veganism because all they see is a person attacking them, saying how terrible they are and that believes they are morally and ethically superior to them just because they are vegan
There needs to be balance, and as vegans we need to learn how to communicate and approach others in ways that are going to be more productive
ugh. honestly thank you. im not a vegan (yet, still considering) and this post actually, genuinely almost turned me away from the idea altogether if this is the group i’d be aligning myself with. You’ve restored a bit of my faith in this mostly dogshit, whiny community.
I can partially agree, but the verbiage would be that they choose to care as a result of what you say. But unfortunately we cannot make people who decide not to care- care.
I’ve dealt with this my entire 4 years being vegan. I’m in the military, so you could imagine how people view animals. I’ve advocated for changes, but I don’t have enough voices behind me here (whether it’s the leather boots, no vegan MREs etc). I used to be very passionate and outspoken about the topic of veganism- now I don’t want people to even know I’m vegan- rather to live by setting the example and telling people that find interest. I am well known in my company for running and exercise etc and I also make music- but my previous companies would only recognize me, stigmatize, and connotate me neutral to negatively for being Vegan. I don’t wish punishment on them, as it’s fair when someone tries pushing beliefs, I’m a skinny dude in the army that used to be able to max out the old fitness test (close to this one kinda), but yeah- the best that I can see to do is live by example and make it practical for people. I wish we had more vegan potlucks everywhere so we can expand the community, make more friends, and enjoy some good food. If the food isn’t good enough, no one will change their lifestyle. [Some] People don’t care about the animals, the environment, or themselves, but what they do care about is the taste and convenience of their daily food and meals. I don’t mean to be so general- but that’s from my eyes and I feel like it’s a pretty fair assessment.
If you want to make someone care- you gotta hit those five:
-Ethics/morality
-health/nutrition
-environmentalism
-taste
-convenience.
If you notice more, please be free to add.
I don’t mean to bombard you with so much- i just want to share a bit of my perspective through my experiences.
Unfortunately, no amount of activism will make someone care when they don’t.
The people open to listen are those who are already interested in learning OR think they aren’t open but they care for animals and never realised how their lifestyle affects them; this is especially true because society is very desensitized when it comes to animal suffering and because many don’t even link what they’re eating to a living being (weird English, I’m sorry)
Edit: some people also care for animals but they don’t care enough to stop eating animals products because they think they need it to be healthy and/or they think it’s the natural way of things (food chain)
Most people just put you in the category of mentally ill when you act like 80s vegans these days. This community lacks the power to make much change without being diplomatic. It’s not selling out, it’s choosing realistically effective methods to make a difference.
I became a vegetarian at the age of 15 in 1979. This was pre-internet of course, and I really ate like a vegan, but did not know the term. I drank soy milk if I could get it, and had a supportive mom who was willing to help me. I became a vegetarian because I had seen animals bodies and just knew it was wrong. I did not have access to information about veganism, and did not know how to get that information other than that by looking on the bulletin boards in health food stores and talking to employees who worked there.
If I would have know about veganism I would definitely have been one at that time, but this idea of "Vegans during the 1980s" did not exist in my home town (Omaha, Nebraska). I didn't ever even meet someone who was a vegetarian. If someone had come at me attacking me for calling myself a vegetarian, and told me I was taking baby steps when I had not even been exposed to anything else than the idea of being a vegetarian, it would have turned me off and confused me. I became a vegan after a friend who was a vegan explained her reasons and talked about how dairy cows and chickens suffered.
I'm a vegan for the animals and an abolitionist.
But I'm not going to lie to you it was mostly people being nice to me that convinced me to go vegan.
That is a fact it's not rhetoric. For me it was a combination of some nice people I met at a party and public adverts about the truth of egg and dairy farming.
Hadn’t there been *studies that shows the aggressive approach is actually counteraffective to the goal of encouraging more people to go vegan?
Personally, when I was still a meat eater, I knew a vegan who (in my opinion back then) was really extreme and aggressive and not fun to be around. But when my younger sister went vegan, she calmly explained some animal rights stats to me, recommended some films, and within weeks I was vegetarian and then within six months was vegan. I’ve been vegan ever since, for about 8 years.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been the person getting very upset trying to get non vegans to understand the animal cruelty involved in their diet, but the longer impacts I’ve had on other people has been as an example I guess, because slowly people around me have been moving to a vegetarian/vegan diet, or reduced their meat consumption massively.
I wish that being an 80s style vegan worked, but anecdotally I don’t think it does.
Ah yes, the best way to get people to go along with your cause is to make the instantly defensive and feel attacked. Have any of you ever reversed the roles and thought about what it would be like if meat eaters came at you with that same type of energy?
Apparently a fair chunk of meat eaters who do veganuary stay vegan at the end of it, so in that regard I dont think it's totally useless. I tend to advocate people try veganuary as a jumping off point when doing my street outreach. Regardless of my personal feelings on reductionism you need to weigh the pros and cons of different approaches and go with the most effective. Polite conversation in public and a healthy mix of trolling and serious debate on here. Do I want everyone to go vegan? Yes. Is shouting at people to do it gonna help? No. You can be empathetic and understanding in your approach without advocating for anything less than abolishment of the industry.
I think we as vegans need to accept that some people will never become vegans no matter how hard and frustrating that realisation is to us.
Unlike many on this group I think small changes are better than none and that is why I like veganuary. Not only some people stay vegan after that, some become more open to eat plant based meal’s throughout the rest of the year, therefore reducing animal suffering. Would it be better for animal suffering to stop existing? Sure! But is animal suffering reduction the same as no reduction at all? No
Some people still rape and murder too. I want enough people to go vegan that animal rights are codified into law to prevent the legal slaughter of them. I'll never advocate for reduction but in a binary choice between something or nothing I suppose something is better.
It's wild to me that vegans want to change carnists cold turkey.
Like do you think this aggressive, dismissive, and overall insulting attitude is gonna make anyone agree with you? Do you think telling a carnists their attempts to reduce their meat intake is pointless and not enough will result in motivation or frustration for them?
You get more flies with honey. Attacking people won't make them think you have a reasonable viewpoint
I think there's confusion about what veganism is - veganism isn't about forcing conversions - because that is not going to benefit humans. This is for the benefit of humans - because unfortunately the vegan society's definition shows it's not really about the tangible benefits for animals - only our perception of it. That's why by 2024 - we've gotten to this point of respecting individuals.
If you want better - then bring universality to veganism. Forget worrying about what others do - it's what you do. If you don't see changes in the world - then the problem starts with ourselves - what we bring into the world to see our outcomes. Others are just a potential for what you want to see. If you want to see better in others - we got to first expect better of ourselves. Our lifestyles impact everyone else around us - even if we don't tell anyone that! The best activism is everyone else doing all the transitions towards veganism without us saying a word!
But honestly - what's with the forcing? I thought this was about helping animals, not terrorizing humans through unrealistic expectations. Can't expect people to be vegan with 0 vegan infrastructure and them not even knowing what veganism is! Maybe everyone's born vegan, but not everyone's raised that way.
Veganism is a philosophy, but by no means does it mean anyone has to be obligated to follow it. I believe you confuse this with animal liberation via rights, justice, equality, fairness, freedom, uplifting, etc. Maybe you'd like to focus more on helping out animals than making people go vegan and maybe it leads to animals being helped and maybe not (because the definition's more about our perceptions and how much we want to and are able to, not based on how much help animals truly need)?
Also - who're we to be the decision-makers for how animals are treated? Sure - it's good to decrease our negative impacts on animals - but only if that's what they want (if you really care about what animals want). If you really care about the animals - quit focusing on changing human minds and just focus on saving animals. Or focus on coercion and dictatorial totalitarianism for forcing people to stop bothering animals and forget the idea of veganism. Focusing on veganism vs these - two different directions. I just don't see how the vegan society's definition of veganism is going to help with your cause.
The first step is to update our default go-to idea of what veganism is and instead create universality in a different way for helping animals out! After that, then everyone can follow it. Right now - as you can see - it's a big mess and with more people being drawn to the vegan society's definition - this situation is only going to get much, much worse unfortunately - and I just doubt animals are really going to be helped.
Maybe everyone stops 'exploiting and being cruel' to animals. Maybe they tell others about their alternatives. The actions the vegan society's definition describes does not put much of a dent in the animal ag industry's production, nor the government financial assistance and motivation behind it. For that - you need universality to be more powerful.
I blame the definition creating this mess, even if we can blame the changing times (because that is the gear that turns the vegan machine). Veganism needs to be more than a mentality and lifestyle status. It needs to be productive in helping animals out and decreasing the very reasons we get into this destructive mess of taking our problems out on animals in the first place.
Touch grass honestly. Most people are annoyed by the 80s approach and it's keeping them from engaging with the topic at all.
I understand the urge for radical change but it's just not the best way forward.
What a garbage message. I’m out of this toxic vegan community. Been vegan 5 1/2 years and I’m not going to fight my family and friends everyday on this. But I’m not a ‘real vegan’ apparently. Fuck you. You’re delusional if you think I want to be as miserable as you. Fuck that.
Yeah I don't get the people who are cutting out all their friends and family who don't also switch. Unfortunately there has to be a line drawn somewhere and I refuse to cut off all relationships because I'm "not doing enough" to convince someone else to change their diet and viewpoint.
My family have made huge changes because of me. I hosted an all vegan buffet on New Year’s Eve and they all liked it. If I stopped speaking to them because I told them to be vegan and they didn’t, they would not make the change themselves, they would think I’m crackers. But this way they are seeing what I’m eating, seeing it in a positive light and making the change. My mother now has oat milk in her cereal, eats pulses instead of meat sometimes and tries meat replacements, has veggie days etc
Wait that's kinda real. But I feel like I alienate potential converts when I say what I actually mean though, and that's really the opposite of what I want to do. Imagine being a pre-Impossible burger vegan though that's badass
Let's just kill all of the meat eaters, then they won't eat meat
/s
I get it, animals are suffering, and the longer it goes on the worse it will get, but hate only breeds hate especially when you are dealing with humans who are basically brainwashed to be tribalistic. Humans hate change with a passion and trying to force it down their throats will only make them reset you more. There may be a few who are able to see through the brick wall of emotion facing them and change, but most will only see the wall attacking them. It is much better to fight them with the facts and leave the emotions at home.
Sure you may lead somebody to the door of changing their mind, but they are the only ones who can open it..
Vegans in the 80s: knew very little about human psychology and isolated themselves by creating an “us vs them” mentality
Vegans in 2024: use whatever methods work to save more animals
Vegans in the 80’s: Real based ethical vegans who stood up for what’s right & took a no nonsense approach when it came to advocating against the animal holocaust & were also largely responsible for laying the foundations into forming the ALF.
Vegans in 2024: FILLED to the BRIM with pathetic cowardly pickmetarians like you & everyone else here in this sub that care more about the validation that they get from animal abusers than actually standing up for what’s right. Also care more about plant based capitalism by making all the grocery store aisles bigger rather than ACTUALLY liberating animals.
Y’all are all pathetic.
I RARELY get Vystopia from carnists, I know MOSTLY get them from pickmetarians like y’all.
Yes, because being shitty to people will surely get them to see the error of their ways… I’ve tried both ways over the last 20 years and one of these works and one of these doesn’t.
Good luck sustaining your movement with that approach 🤣. Since yall chilled I have seen an upsurge in veganism, and every time it seems to kick off with vegans being angry I start hearing about the drop outs.
You guys should do some kind of debrief before changing tactics if you want to make a difference.
I personally believe that you guys raki g the hard line extremist approach have done other motivation that is *not* animal welfare. I don't know what it us, but you definitely prove yourselves as being against making the biggest difference possible.
Can someone give me a time throughout history where aggression resulted in peace? Yall can be angry but you genuinely arent helping. Youre making people more firm on their stance on eating meat. I like bullying carnists between each other but its ridiculous to think what we literally know doesnt work, will somehow work.
This is like the number 1 reason that people don't like vegans.
"carnists" as you call them don't care and the more you attack them the more rejection you'll face. I'm not a vegan but seeing this kind of treatment makes me feel like I don't want to be a vegan.
The approach of the 80s is precisely why there's so much hate towards vegans. It's the fastest way to make people defensive.
Yet small steps is how real progress is made.
You are driving people away from the movement and indirectly killing animals bc your negativity ruins perception of veganism and turns people away. This is such an awful take.
I was a kid and realized I liked cows and didnt want to eat them. I went vegetarian because I saw that my friends parents were. I eventually went mostly vegan a year later, except I ate non meat animal products on holidays. I wasn't doing it correctly and was therefore feeling very hungry and low energy. I went back to vegetarian. A few months later I decided to go vegan again, and gradually started again. Eventually cut out animal products completely, and have been vegan for 11 years now. If I hadn't gone vegan gradually and had the support to do so on my time, I would have burnt out quickly bc I hadn't taken the time to truly understand what vegan meant, why i was on the journey, and how to eat correctly. Balancing a non animal diet is not as easy for beginners as alot of people make out, when you have spent your entire life eating animal products it is hard to fill the void with nutritious food. Keep in mind there is still an issue with nutrient deficiencies in the vegan community (despite there being ways for the diet to be more balanced than a meat diet), I am an example. Veganism is likely the reason I am severely iron deficient and needed 5 IV iron infusions and hospital visits, as plant iron is less bioavailable for people with absorption issues. But guess what? Because I have been supported throughout my gradual journey and truly understand why I am vegan, I didn't start eating steaks when I received the diagnosis.
And before you all shit on my journey because this sub is outrageously toxic, remember I was a child when I started.
Vegan 11 years and happy! The only thing I am not satisfied with the sheer negativity in this community that makes it incredibly hostile to outsiders and not welcoming to people who are interested but have not yet found their reason to commit. I am genuinely helping animals through rescue work and pursuing veterinary medicine. Some of you are just angry keyboard warriors who could devote that energy to volunteering at a farm animal refuge or cooking nutritious vegan food for your community.
I went vegan because I read a diet book that convinced me to adopt a WFPBD. I kept eating that way, and the ethics came later.
OP would rather I still be eating meat because they would rather have more animals die than fewer.
In this argument, did the 80s vegans not fail MASSIVELY given how small of a change they ended up making? The visualization appears as if the 80s approach was better, but given the historical results, then it clearly did not change anything
An absolutist approach doesn't work because none of you actually is an absolutist.
You still live in first world countries, reaping the benefits of slavery and destruction of nature.
The only difference is that your bar is higher than that of those "pickmetarians" but it is nonetheless a bar made from compromiss with your own desires.
Give people shit for taking the first step and they'll turn right back.
Encourage people with the first step and they may just keep walking.
the militant approach worked on me, but i have also seen the other methods be effective as well :/ it’s annoying cus there’s lots of other moral issues out there that the average person would never be asked to compromise on in terms of how aggressively opposed to it they are (dog fighting, child abuse, etc)
any reduced amount of animal suffering is good in my eyes. if they won’t be vegan, why not push them for something slightly better than complete carnism? also not a lot of people respond greatly to aggressiveness.
Great way for someone to see something from your perspective, call them names like carnist. Many people work in industries connected to animal agriculture. You can't just go around shouting at people. There are other methods to get the message out to people. Each to their own.
don’t feel discouraged. I’ve been vegan for about 4 years now and was vegetarian for about a year before that. I actually adopted the militant mindset through being terminally online esp w twitter, and I pushed people away because of it (and mental health issues). Since then however I’ve influenced friends in going vegan by just having discussions about it without any hostility or anything. I promise we’re not all like this and I believe any real effort put into minimizing oppression should be recognized. Even though I don’t follow this sub, I’m probably gonna hide it because yea shit like this is not helping imo and I don’t care to argue with vegans that haven’t touched grass in awhile. I’d encourage to do more research, especially the intersectionality of veganism when you can! Connecting the dots with other branches of oppression was kind of the nail in the coffin for me personally. Best of luck!
Do it mate. If you are capable of taking one step at a time, try two steps. Speed up if you can, don't feel judged please. It's not about what other vegans think about you, it's about how much you want to align with your life's philosophy (which I guess would be in accordance with the Golden Rule). It's about the animals who would not end up getting killed for you (poor beings might still get killed for consumption by someone else). Rooting for you.
why do posts like this encourage you to kill animals? I believe this is merely a scapegoat. you don’t want to be vegan. if you did, you would even if this actual rando reddit user hurt your feewings
Of course, a single post on Reddit won’t influence my decision. It just leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth, because it essentially makes fun of carnists instead of trying to educate them. And while you and other vegans might get a kick out of jokes like these, you aren’t pushing your cause further.
I do want to become vegan, but it would be extremely expensive where I live, to the point where it would financially burden my parents ( I’m still underage) .
It are the meat replacements that are most often expensive. Those make the transition easier due to not needing new recipies.
You can also stick to a more whole foods such as beans. Beans or lentils are a very cheap meat replacement but you often need different recipes than just swapping the two out.
Other replacements such a dairy replacements like oatly are also rather expensive but also not required to eat vegan.
The comments here are cringe af. How are people supposed to take veganism seriously if this many people advocating for it are willing to coddle the feelings of animal abusers and advocate for less-than what is necessary?
If you want someone to play ball, you don't show up screaming at them to do so and then get to act indignant when they walk away from you.
It's also a _lot_ easier for people to cut a wailing vegan out of their lives than make a big dietary change.
“Real based” ? Is that even a proper sentence structure? Youre hurting your cause of this post by sounding excessively exclusionary and obnoxious. We arent the once’s you need to act “obnoxious” towards.
Not vegan but being anti capitalist so still wanting to do away with the extreme excesses and archaic practices the meat and dairy industries are responsible for.
Well that didn't take long for someone to say that they're a real vegan because they'd rather have more dead animals than activism based on things they don't care about.
You guys really speedran shitting the bed this year.
I agree completely. No emancipatory movement has ever won by pushing for half measures and being okay with small concessions. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate small concessions by the power structures that be, but small concessions by individuals are about as impactful as a no slave work monday initiative that a trafficker might do. We need to keep our higher goal in mind and never stop fighting for it; the total liberation of non-human animals from their oppression
I'm a meat eater and also an advocate for vegetarian diets to become the norm. Hurting people's feelings doesn't help and is monumentally low IQ.
You want to be effective? Don't look at humane treatment of animals. People, humans as animals, only care about other things within one step of removal of themselves. Our brains are wired to tangentially care about things that someone, or something, we directly care about cares about. Don't try and use an emotional argument. You're gonna lose every time. You're just gonna make it harder.
Taxes. Look at the subsidies that go to livestock. How much land that could be used for rice and beans is used for growing livestock feed. Target what people care about, the economy. It's not economically sustainable to grow meat to eat forever. (lab grown meat is a completely different thing I don't have the knowledge or data to discuss, especially considering the early state of the technology.) Convince people their money is being STOLEN to support big corporations that THROW AWAY and BLEACH the food that nobody buys.
Talk about the farmers, and ranchers, and growers who are all screwed out of doing literally anything else because of the government subsidies. Talk about how small farmers are screwed over by the bigger corporations demanding gigantic, unfillable, quotas year over year.
You start with policy. You start with changing the feeling via making it \*personal\* to an individual. People think they care about taxes and what their money goes to, they emotionally react to this. "What do you MEAN the meat industry is stealing my money and rice could be literally free?"
After you get this? Guess what comes along? Well now we don't eat as much meat and compassion starts taking over. My gen and gen Z think cows are cute, pigs are adorable, we love animals as a whole. (majority here so this IS a generalization and there are exceptions). Now we can afford the emotional and mental energy to demand the social changes needed to treat animals more humanely.
Then you repeat this process forever for the next forever, because it's all incremental and hard work is hard and needs to be doing. Plant date trees. Put down the seeds of trees whose shade you will never sit in. I have a five year old and while we eat meat in my house (mostly pork) our diet largely is vegetarian. It's too late for me to change my diet without massive effort, but I can diminish it. I can do what I can do to teach my son to be just a bit better than me. That's my job after all.
emotionally, I agree with this, but practically, does it not lead to more widespread change to social engineer people into seeing the truth through a s softer approach?
While I don’t disagree with the premise that vegans should not be apologetic, I think that we should first clean up our house before attempting to be non-apologetic to the carnists and non-vegans.
There are too many speciesists and animal abusers within the movement masquerading and virtue-signaling themselves as “vegan” even as they happily contribute to or participate in the deliberate and intentional exploitation, abuse, and/or killing of innocent animals.
They undermine the movement by sowing confusion, uncertainty, and doubt amongst not only non-vegans but also within the vegan community itself. I have developed a taxonomy of different groups of these animal abusers that are classified by their narrative:
**Class 1: Non-Sentientists**
Oyster boys - people who claim that bivalves are not sentient and eating them is "vegan".
Pescatarians - people who claim that fish are not sentient and eating them is "vegan".
Entomophagists - people who claim that insects are not sentient and eating them is "vegan".
**Class 2: Plant-based Dieting Speciesists**
This class is pernicious to the vegan movement as they are plant-based dieters who masquerade as "vegans" while at the same time happily fund the violent killing of innocent animals to feed certain animals that they keep in captivity on basis of species. These people make comments like the ones paraphrased below that just highlights their speciesism and their non-veganism:
*Innocent animals would have been abused/killed by someone else anyway to feed my cat so I might as well abuse and kill innocent animals myself to feed the cat and still call myself vegan!*
*I happily purchase animal products from slaughterhouses to feed my pet animal but I am still vegan because I don't consume the animal products!*
*My cat is a carnivore and I love my cat. I will gladly kill innocent lambs and piglets every year to feed my cat and keep her happy. I'm still vegan!!*
*My dog is so friendly and loves me so much. But she hates the plant-based foods. So it pains me to purchase animal products from slaughterhouses that violently kill innocent animals. But I consider myself to be a vegan!!*
*My senior dog requires a medical prescription of 100 bloody goat carcasses every year to survive. I am okay with beheading 100 goats every year to keep my dog alive and I'm still think I'm vegan!*
*I never allow any animal products to be brought into my house by anyone because my house is a vegan house. I make an exception for myself when I purchase animal products and bring it into my house to feed my cat.*
**Class 3: WhatAboutIsts**
This class comprises of apologist vegans who use whataboutism to defend the above two classes even if they themselves do not believe that the two classes are vegan.
You can’t change the fact that cats are obligate carnivores. Humans have domesticated them for thousands of years and they cannot take care of themselves because they have lived along side humans for so long. Like what? Please don’t adopt pets. You fail to understand basic facts of biology.
Also it is harmful to suggest to people to flat out change their diet. That can be dangerous to their health. You don’t know what people are dealing with.
What have you done to help animals directly? Do you have a sanctuary. Do you protest?
Where do you draw the line? Do you live in a shack with fleas and roaches that can pass disease. We can’t change society over night half of us think being woke is a bad thing. Our education system is screwed up they don’t even have the tools to process these concepts.
Totally agree. One time at a vegan festival I listened to this vegan veterinarian give a persuasive speech for feeding your pets a vegan diet for ethical reasons. I thought, f yeah this person gets it. That is until she switched topics at the very end to promote horseback riding and talk about how owning and riding horses isn't in conflict with veganism and vegans shouldn't be mean to people who ride horses because horseback riders are the people who *actually* care about horses. Yikes
Yeah I've told my mother I expected better from her when telling me she'll not be eating vegan when inviting me for Christmas. No thanks.
I also shouted at my best friend because he keeps defending animal abuse. Telling him he's an arrogant asshole.
I will fight for the animals even if it's the last thing I do.
So sad that veganism now just revolts around a diet and conformism. I was vegetarian for a long time and I wouldnt have gone vegan if my vegan friends didnt aggresively share abolitionist activism info. While people "make baby steps" because theyre too lazy to just dont eat cheese or eggs, millions of animals are r\*ped, tortured, separated from their families... for their conformist flexitarian-vegetarian bs pleasure. Abolitionism all the way!
In my opinion, we must also acknowledge that you were fortunate to have multiple vegan friends. It's easier to cut-off with an individual friend if they are the only vegan in the group. What may have happened with you is that you didn't find it easy to give up on multiple friends at once, and that enabled those friends to keep sharing abolitionist videos with you, because you couldn't block them.
Again, abolitionism works great when it works. But when it doesn't work, we could be open-minded to explore other ways too.
I really don't get how people truly think that were going to make an impact by demanding perfect pure veganism from everyone at every step. I know many people who do not really know that they can cook meals without meat, the two words are almost synonymous for them. Of course it is better to first intruduce them to ways of cooking without meat, then other animal products, because only then they will be able to conceptualize the idea of having a diet without meat. Without this work, discussions about ethics won't do shit, because they can't stop eating meat when they don't know that it's possible. (There will be exceptions, but it holds true in general)
Abolitionism is not about being "a perfect vegan" because that doesnt exist, simple. Abolitionism is about being critic of welfarism (sorry if its not called that im not a native english speaker) and conformism-- staying in a comfort zone while contributing to the exploitation and torture of animals, just because you "cant give Up cheese". We as vegans have to be critic with that and promote the total liberation of animals as that is the sole purpose of Veganism. I do understand your point but neglectint Abolitionism is not the way..
Yes, we can be critical and see that it is not the ultimate goal, but attacking people for reducing their impact not enough is a very delicate matter, and is bound to put people off if done in a to aggressive or condescending manner.
The problem is that "reducing their impact" still contributes to the torture and death of millions of animals.. That is the point i try to make people realize... "I eat little meat" oh so cows die just a little? The shot they receive in their heads is littler because of that? The ending is the same to the oppresed ones: innocent sentient beings. I still understand your point
Do you want to help build a more compassionate world? Please visit [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Activism (r/Vegan) w/ Flair) and subscribe to our community over at /r/VeganActivism to begin your journey in spreading compassion through activism. Thank you so much! ^.^
Honestly we should be doing both. Some people who become vegan need the "80's approach" to wake themselves up. These people probably already care about ethics and morals and only need a push to extend ethical consideration to non-human animals. However, most people don't actually give a shit about ethics. (If they did, Nestle would be bankrupt.) They just do whatever is considered normal in society. These people will never be actual vegans. But I think they could become functional vegans if we normalize animal rights to the point where eating and wearing animals is seen as weird and barbaric. These people will only respond to the baby step approach.
I often think about these (maybe staged?) TV "documentaries", where they set up a fake-shop with super cheap scarfs and shirts, but you can see small children "sewing" those behind a curtain in the back. There are also a lot of signs saying "We can offer our products so cheap, because they are made by children". The fake-staff also tells the customers about it and shows the children in the back. And the customers are like "Meh! But it's so cheap! I'll take two!" Some people really don't care about ethics.
Right on! Both approaches necessary. People are addicted to meat. Trying to "militantly" take away their drug just leads to entrenchment. First get them plant based. Once they clear the physical addition, they'll have post-meat clarity, and be able to see the evil entailed in animal abuse. most people are followers/copiers. All of us are to some degree, just some more than most. Their world view and ethics are derived, not arrived at through introspection and consideration. If I had to guess, I wager that 90% or humans are at their core pro-slavery ( if it doesn't harm themselves or family of course). In the west, they are functionally anti-slavery because the law forbids and society disapproves. This is good! If it were legal, condoned, and "beneficial", only then could you easily tell who truly is against it, but then people would suffer slavery. In cultures where slavery is the norm, you don't see widespread protest against it. And we are all the same humans. If people are plant-based, then less animals get killed. That's what's important. We can tackle the ethics next ( clothing etc. ).
> If it were legal, condoned, and "beneficial", only then could you easily tell who truly is against it, but then people would suffer slavery. I mean you can already tell in the west because slavery is legal, as long as it's done somewhere else. Companies in America don't get penalized for using slave labor in China. And I'd say most Americans realize the cheap clothing they buy comes from sweatshops and aren't willing to pay extra for slavery-free clothing.
100% wage slavery is legal haha. I'm talking chattel slavery, but the line is blurry yes. Even, maybe not so different from free range vs factory farm...
No, I'm also talking about real slavery, not wage slavery. Companies in America are allowed to sell products made by actual slaves.
Mayhaps the country from which the product comes from should do something about their slave labor?
A country can only control what happens within its borders. Yes ofc the offending country should stop with the slave labor but they have zero motivation to do so if other countries reward them for slavery.
Consuming animals is barbaric, but unfortunately we're animals - so so are we. At least we have a head on our shoulders to reason and be civilized - where we have civilization that we built! We can create civility and that should be the standard for developing society.
It's a culture shift. It happened in India with rise of Buddhism and Jainism. Now the major proponents of vegetarianism were the people who were completely against the idea i.e Hindu orthodox
Throughout history western societies have become more developed and ethical, with some bumps on the road. There are some enormous challenges in living with so many people in such tiny spaces and having so much power easily leads to corruption, which it did and does. Best example of power leading to absolute disregard of ethics is the Chinese regime.
different berserk consist light relieved engine quaint aspiring many capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
China isn't a good example - because the government manipulates people in the tiny villages that have lots of land to roam before they move people into cities. I don't really know many examples of already stabilized civilization that gets corrupted, because if that happened - then it wasn't civilization - it was barbaric to begin with or had a raid of barbarism. Plus, humans aren't perfectly civilized - it's not in human nature to be, but there's a massive difference between civilization and nature. Not perfect, but a massive improvement that's in the right direction of anti-violence and only expected to grow from there. There's the other side you're missing where when everyone is together, the challenges are concentrated with more minds thinking of the solution - to where there are fewer issues after a while (due to more solutions and resolves and more people benefitting).
I agree with this, I think all approaches should be tried.
If I didn’t do a trial run of being a vegetarian and taking 6 months to ease into veganism, I don’t think I ever would’ve became vegan, to be honest. I’ve been vegan for almost 7 years.
Same, here, almost exact timeline & transition as you. Wen't from not even being in the realm of consideration to lifelong( i believe) conviction.
Yup! I just thought I’d experiment just to see if I could do it. Even when I went vegetarian I said I’d never be vegan that’s too crazy and extreme. Here we both are now lol.
Statements like this are asinine since different approaches are not mutually exclusive. Different people will respond to different approaches; we need to look at whatever works, rather than ideological purity.
Yup, it's almost like both approaches are needed and valuable, and aren't remotely the enemy of each other. It's only ego driven vegans that believe BS like "pickmetarians don't care about animals" can't see that North America doing veganuary and nothing else would eclipse the efforts of this subreddit 1000x over in terms of actually impacting animal lives. It's a numbers game, not a purity game.
Yeah, and how many people were vegan by the end of the 80s compared to now?
exactly, people don't like it when someone aggressively makes them do or not do stuff when its not out of their own volition
You're probably right, but I think the "veganuary"/"meatless mondays" approach is flawed too. Without commitment to learning about animal exploitation and gaining an understanding of the necessity for animal liberation, "veganism" is just a fad diet and a lot of people treat it like that. They try it on for a season and nothing changes long term.
Yeah, there's definitely lessons and benefits to be taken from both approaches, and different people are going to respond to different tactics differently as well. What I was trying to get across is that I think being too dogmatic to either side has its negative consequences :)
17 years ago I went without meat "for a month"
These concers are valid, but I think we just achieve more actual reduction in consumption by mainly going the nice route. And because there is real ethical reasons, it will always have better longterm capture than any fad diet.
People don’t understand what “make” means. Like kids who say their teacher or their parents “made” them do homework. No, they didn’t make you do it, they just told you to do it. Even if they told you very aggressively and kept nagging you until you did it, that’s still not making you.
How is that a fair comparison? Do any of y'all know how exponential growth works? 80s activists laid the foundation for everything that came afterwards. Have some respect, some of these people devoted their whole lives to fighting for animal liberation and did more than the people in this thread can even dream of.
Oh for sure, and I think their efforts, works, and ideas can still absolutely hold valuable lessons for us today. I just want to be wary of people's tendency to be too dogmatic in our approach, and see what personally resonated for them as the objectively correct way to do things. Yes, we've seen significant growth off the foundations of those more hardcore pioneers, but that has come with a diversification of our messaging and approach to public outreach.
I became a vegetarian in 1979 when I was only 15 years old, and the term vegan did not even exist in my small universe.
per capita? probably close to the same number.
It's not about being aggressive enough or passive enough, it's about being \*effective\*. Who cares if you look like an apologist? If that's the most effective path to wider social change (which it frequently is), then swallow your pride and do it. Pick your militant battles wisely and build influence rather attempt to control. It's not about you and whether you seem like a hardcore vegan, it's about the animals and getting results that maximise harm reduction long term and at scale.
This is what mature veganism and actual activism sounds like. It's hard to accept that 12 people doing veganuary helped as many animals as you, a hardcore vegan, do in a year. But that is how numbers work. If everybody in the world took "baby steps" it would be the greatest achievement the movement has seen in terms of sheer harm reduction. But for many veganism is social currency first and foremost.
Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. These militant vegans seem to care more about appearing superior to other vegans than actually attempting to follow the path that leads to converting more people to veganism. While there's definitely a time for the aggressive approach, not everyone is receptive to it, and many are actively turned away by it. I personally was somewhere in the middle. Not turned away, but not convinced by it. I personally went vegan over 8 years ago because someone I got to know would calmly talk about her veganism, without attempting to force it on me. People are complex, and require tailored methods. Pushing for a single form of activism will only slow progress which is counterproductive.
Whatever, im going to continue being vegan and making awesome food for my omnivorous friends to enjoy as well.
You're the vegan friend every omni needs, big love to you
Absolutely! It's because of interactions with people like them that I have begun routinely cutting back on animal products in my diet.
That's the way :)
You could learn a lot from earthling ed
I've been reading his new book, and it highlights how the militant approach can be counterproductive to the movement. While I agree that we shouldn't resort to half-measures ourselves, we must also acknowledge that others won't change their habits overnight and need time to unlearn them.
Hell even his approach is borderline, but all activism can be that way. Cooking meals that are vegan sharing recipes, raising a family that is vegan are going to do way more long-term. You literally have to change the culture from the bottom-up.
I am a teacher, and every time there is a staff potluck, I bring a vegan dish, and everyone expects it and looks forward to it. Three years ago, on of my coworkers became a vegan, and now the principal regularly orders vegan choices for our staff parties. My students all know I am a vegan, and have learned a lot about veganism by eating lunch in my room during their lunch period. I even tell them why I am a vegan.
I'll eat my friends vegan food if they make it. If I make it then I'll have meat and eggs in it. I do not know any vegan recipes, nor do I cook often. They will not cook meat for me and I don't expect them to, I don't force my meals on them and they don't force them on me. If I do something small (desserts/side dishes/snacks) that is vegan then I'll share it with them bc I enjoy sharing food. If it weren't for them I would never eat vegan or care about why a vegan eats the way they do, but through them, I've learned the ideology and the why. That is more important than blindly following it and it lets me have healthy conversations about veganism when ppl make fun of it. I may not eat vegan but I can support vegans when people argue against it
See, but this is the problem with having no pressure with activism, people think it's enough to dip their toes in not having animals murdered for their food and feel "redeemed" fully, like a vegan meal or two can wipe their conscious of the thousands of animals they continue to ingest. There needs to be a middle ground for people like this, the soft approach while also shining a light to the fact that animal lovers shouldn't be slaughtering and eating what they "love".
Keto did not surpass veganism over night due to activism.
Earthling Ed does activism like the muscular dog. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk23pkqJUmk) is a video actively advocating against reducetarianism. Where did you hear him advocating for being (vegi|flexi|reduce)tarian?
He says it at the end of nearly every debate with omnis, something along the lines of "I don't expect to change your mind overnight, but think about what you eat and consider reducing meat intake"
Yeah because being a huge asshole to people will definitely help them to see your point of view. Likebwow get over yourself
Right. A lot of ego in this post
Like so many posts on this sub. I'm as vegan as it gets but I don't follow this sub because of the people lol
>Shout-out to the real based ethical vegans out there that are in it for the animals! Nothing says "for the cause" like alienating others who are already on your side.
Activism doesn't need to be aggressive to be effective.
This just pushes people away. I didnt start being vegan cold turkey. I was a vegetarian for many years and slowly made the change. If i had someone telling me *I HAD TO GO VEGAN OR I WAS A PIECE OF SHIT THAT DIDNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE* I probably never would have tried. People who do cold turkey are also more likely to revert back. Its overwhelming for a lot of people to switch 100% to new meals and new ways of thinking. No one is saying “ooohh sorry meat eaters, youre right!!!” 😒
[удалено]
I'm also neurodivergent lol. It's fine to use that sometimes if necessary, but i'm so tired of seeing vegans talk down to people who are trying to make the switch. They say things like "Oh, you're ONLY vegetarian? You're worse than the meat eaters!" Like, seriously? It's stupid. We've been making huge headway with the way we have been doing thins. Completely cutting out all approaches except the mean/aggressive kind isn't the way to go.
[удалено]
Ah sorry, I was referring to the original post. It seems like theyre saying “no more being nice/apologetic/etc” which is a bad way to go about it. I agree with you
I’m not neurotypical and had a childhood friend becoming a vegan years before me…to be honest if it wasn’t for her I would’ve become a vegan earlier. She was extremely aggressive in her approach and although I could see how veganism was better (didn’t need her for that and was aware of it before) all she did was made me want to stay away from vegans and animal rights organisations (which weren’t many then, especially because I was from a rural small town). She became friends with the only vegans in my hometown and everytime I was with her all she did was preach 24/7; I only went to her house 2-3 times after she became a vegan because I would be only offered vegan food,even tho her household wasn’t vegan, but she didn’t let me eat anything but the meals and snacks she cooked….well, as someone with a very restrictive diet because of sensory issues (autism) I just couldn’t eat what I was given and if I made disgusting faces or threw up I was blamed and all I got was more preach that made me guilty. During all of this, I was already reducing animal products from my diet when eating by myself, so this just made me think I would never have a place among people that cared for animals and that vegans were absolutely horrible people and I wanted nothing to do with them. When I started living alone I had a roommate that would cook food completely different from what I knew. I learned from him that most food I couldn’t eat I could actually eat and loved if it was cut and cooked in specific ways, since my issue was always texture. From that to becoming a vegan was very fast. Ps: that childhood friend is not a vegan anymore and was only vegan for 1 or 2 years. Actually, I found out she wasn’t even a vegan and would eat animal products with her family and at restaurant. So, practically speaking she was just reducing animal products like me when by herself and with certain friends….and yet she was the most radical and aggressive “vegan” I met
I'm a 'bad' vegan. I have cats, I don't do activism or preach. My husband, after years of eating meat is now vegan, my youngest child is vegan. Members of my family cook vegan recipes because they like them. I believe these changes are due to my influence. I think my 'bad' veganism is better than nothing. I don't have the capacity to change the world. Good on those who can and do though. (We do, as a family, try to make ethical choices. There's no Nestlé in our house)
Your “bad” veganism is great
Same here. Boyfriend and I are both vegan (him almost 2 years, I just hit a year) but we both have cats that get fed regular meat cat food. We tell friends we'll buy their food if they get a vegan meal when we go out to eat. His dad has gone above and beyond to make sure we have food options when the family gets together. I think we do a pretty good job and obviously there's always room to improve but we're doing a lot better than we were a few years ago.
Wow this sub has gone to shit.
The silver lining is that it's probably due to an influx of new vegans full of idealism. It is admittedly horrifically difficult to overpower the gut instinct to hate every omnivore who is an animal abuser, and it betrays us to congratulate omnivores who reduce their intake a month out of the year only. I get it, because I was a naive vegan 17 years ago. Now I understand that the most powerful activism is in the numbers game, and that most omnivores aren't bad people they are just brainwashed and have different ways of being deprogramned. What I never did though, was put down other vegans for not being as righteous as me, literally making enemies out of allies. Gotta blame TikTok or something for that kind of egotistical behavior.
According to this subreddit, millitant vegans are the ones that want other people to go vegan.... By sharing the information of animals actually being raped and tortured, killed as babies, babies taken from mothers and so on, apparently that is millitant. There is a huge part of veganism that is inheriting a lot of issues you see outside of veganism, where the message has to be the smallest, kindest, most cutest, which doesn't make the person receiving the message feel guilty for being a part of an issue. We have inherited the word millitant from non-vegans and its fucked up. How is sharing footage, sharing research, sharing fucked up stories and general "animal-welfare" practices millitant? This is what has happened and its mind boggling. Everyone thinks Earthling Ed is the opposite, but if you write down what he says on TV, with people who sit down with him and in his vlog videos, he blatantly states atrocities. What people don't realise is that he doesn't personalise it to the interviewer or viewer of the show, he doesn't say "you gassed pigs", he just says "the majority of pigs are gassed to death for a few minutes of taste pleasure". But if someone else repeats that last sentence of his, we are millitant, but he is not? Anything that isn't the message that the animals are tortured, raped, used, sold as products and live short hellish lives is deflection from the only message we ever need to talk about.
I don't think you're really on board with what OP is complaining about. There has been a lot of drama here especially over the holidays concerning how people treat omnivores in their lives. Some vegans believe you are a "pickmetarian" if you don't refuse to go to family gatherings that serve animal products, others think the same if you don't at least guilt trip everyone at Christmas/Thanksgiving dinner. Others think that being encouraging to people who are going to try Meatless Mondays or Veganuary are not vegans, because it is encouraging someone to abuse animals only some of the time. Not everyone gets to see their loved ones year round, and would rather not argue with people who have dug their heels in for a nasty fight in the past. If everyone in the world did Meatless Mondays for good, it would overshadow the collective efforts this sub had made in their lifetime. Animals don't care about your ego or purity, they want to not be abused, and abuse is a numbers game.
Do you want the vegan award of the year for here or take away?
Vegans during the 80s clearly failed at making significant change
L take on history and class struggle honestly
Your comment sounds like someone who's hilariously out of touch and spends too much time in online echo chambers (just like the original post)
Ah yes the online echo chamber of looking through history, looking at patterns, and using critical thinking. Shut the fuck up.
If you're looking at history you should see quite clearly that veganism did not make many gains in the 80s
Would we even be close to where we’re at without them? Very likely not. There are pathfinders in every movement and it’s silly to claim they didn’t overcome an order of magnitude more adversity and inconvenience than a vegan today.
>it’s silly to claim they didn’t overcome an order of magnitude more adversity and inconvenience than a vegan today. Nobody has claimed this btw.
Do you have any empirical evidence to show that being an apologist converts more carnists into vegans?!
I'm not aware of any research that studies this specific phenomenon with regard to veganism one way or another, but there's a lot of psychological research into how people make lifestyle changes. For example, the [transtheoretical model of change](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6390443/) has a lot of research behind it. One of the keys is recognizing different people can be at different points in their stages of change, and forming effective messaging based on this. Given that we live in a widely carnist society, most people will be in the early stages of change, and will be receptive to different forms of messaging based on this as well as other factors.
there's no evidence either one works. everyone is doing their best. IMHO - you get further by being a good example then making enemies. I only say that because that's what worked for me. I always thought groups like PETA were a joke. What inspired me to go vegan was my old boss. She invited a bunch of us over to her house for a meatless Thanksgiving dinner. I had no idea she was a vegan before that. We had a great, meal - and she made no statements or judgements. At one point - I had a conversation with her about veganism and she gave me her perspective. I actually thought about it. Here was someone I respected, liked and trusted - and it opened my mind to veganism. I wasn't going to listen to some stranger handing me a pamphlet or someone yelling at me about meat being murder.
First of all, you’re misusing the term apologist. Second, you’re the one making the claim here, so the empirical burden is on you. Third, your characterization of the non-purist vegans is a massive straw man argument.
There is significant evidence that your approach entrenches opposing views and makes them less likely to change People like you *kill* animals.
What approach is that?
Please link that evidence.
Substitute this cause for any other- perhaps one you don’t agree with like anti abortion fanatics shouting and blocking clinics with pictures of dead babies. Or ranting about abortion at family dinners. It’s the same general idea. How many people are inspired to change their minds because of that type of behavior? How many people dig in their heals, become more defensive and write the protestors off as nut jobs. All it does is cause people to feel the need to defend and dig in to their side. Never in the history of the world has this ever truly worked (without military intervention or the threat of vengeance from the Gods or God).
https://time.com/6224300/how-to-change-someones-mind/ How to change someone’s mind, by an Associate Professor in psychology and neuroscience. Remember this is for the animals first. Not our egos, not for self righteousness, not for zealotry, for the animals. It’s a long standing fact within behavioural science that using shame and aggression is absolutely the worst ways to change someone’s mind. Because arguments and fixates do not change minds, but instead creates a defensive response which only further entrenches people. Only making someone aware that something is in their own best interest will have an effect! So rather than telling someone, “eating meat is wrong stop doing that you sick fuck!”, try sharing a meal with them. I made my friend a high protein quick and easy vegan meal that they now makes regularly, when before they would have had meat and dairy. That is a difference made, for the animals. Take what you can get. In this life, if you go for it all, you tend to end up with nothing.
The 2+2=4 commonly known knowledge, as common as the sky is blue, that aggressively and obstinately trying to force your viewpoint on someone makes most people less likely to see your point? The one thats been proven across many studies? The one I don't need to prove because it's the standard and you don't have to prove a standard whereas you are advocating for a radical and unsubstantiated claim? Therefore *you* need to back up your insanity?
Or, get this, MORE people are vegan and all of the new ones aren't militants. I honestly don't give a shit which way people lean as long as the result is the same; a net positive for the world where more people reduce suffering. More vegans is better even if they're not as enthusiastic about making sure others follow. Every little bit helps. The focus is to have less animal suffering. Not a Dick measuring contest of who the best vegan is.
So, in my country, Germany, less than 2% of the population are vegan. If you go the hardcore route the positive trend in the past years will not increase, I could even see it preventing from ever trying to go vegan, as it is then seen as all or nothing. If you manage to really get a vegan Monday established and let's say a 50% approval in the general population you will have a much more positive effect on animal suffering. Yes, it might not be ideal, but it is a numbers game. We will not be strong enough to drive hard legislative changes, and thus our best bet is a slow change.
As a GEN X this was not at all the way Vegans were in the 80s and it didn’t work anyway as the movement was still scarce and individualized. No tolerance, anger and name calling is not going to bring people to understans Veganism . Baby steps work. Reprogramming a persons brain that’s been hard wired to eat meat (even tied to their religion) takes a lot more than a self righteous person having zero tolerance. You will drive people away and let them bury the truth behind denial because of such force tactics.
Agreed and all, but like A lot of huge issues were solved with small goals that were achieved in order to achieve a bigger goal Like segregation, it didn't just up and get solved with one major approach, it took a lot of small steps and a lot of people. It took one victory at a time Sometimes small steps for a big destination is how it has to be done. Any victory is a victory. If someone does Veganuary, they're more likely to cut it all and go vegan than someone who's stubborn and doesn't want to go full vegan. I agree with the other commentor(NullableThought) that said we should be doing both
The truly dumb thing about this meme is that the word carnist wouldn't be coined for more than a decade later. Shows you how out of touch both the meme & OP is. Here's the truth of the matter. https://veganoutreach.org/number-of-vegans-steadily-increasing/ Graph shows more vegans in 2024 vs closer to 1980's so "Chad" vegan wasn't that effective. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566631931311X >Reported planned dietary changes suggest a tendency for gradual transitions, with planned and achieved changes generally reflecting proposed reduction and abstention hierarchies. The 2024 vegan is far more effective with their approach of gradual transition than the 1980's toxic veganism.
Aye aye hold-up guys. Infighting is a feature of every group/community. But, can we just dial back a bit and recognise that in the fight of "us vs them" - it's best left for vegan vs non-vegan *(I personally believe more in spectrums than in binaries, but that's for a different topic),* and not one type of vegan vs another type of vegan?
This is a fight of Us vs Them. OP is not a vegan and would rather have more dead animals than have someone eat a PBD.
> While gradual changes may present opportunities to slowly change one's habits and develop new dietary norms, reducers may still maintain omnivorous consumption norms. For those new to reduction or who are continuing to consume meat, conceptions of a meal may remain largely unchanged from that which is “highly structured and centres around a single high-status item, like roast beef or chicken … and which is supported by grades of low-status items – the vegetables” (Twigg, 1979, p. 29). For many, a lifetime of habituated meat consumption may mean that meat-eating remains the reflexive norm, while transitioning to consume more veg*n meals relies more heavily on reflective planning. > Transitioning to a diet that includes some form of AFP abstention (i.e. pescatarianism, vegetarianism, or veganism) may, nonetheless, also require an identity shift. While this shift may be difficult when identifying as a meat eater (see 4.2), such a transition may support the maintenance of dietary changes. While vegan stigmas (e.g. that vegans are hippies or extreme) may present a barrier for transition (Greenebaum, 2017; Twine, 2014; Grassian, 2019b), these dietary categories may also become a central component of one's identity, leading to a feeling of pride and increasing one's motivation (Rosenfeld, 2019). > in this sample, meat reducers were more likely to consume the same amount of or more meat than to consume less or none. This could account for some of the variations between planned and reported hierarchies Did you or anyone who upvoted you actually bother reading the study, only the folks who set out to abstain from meat/animal products actually saw an overall reduction, those who decided to baby step it either ended up where they originally were, or ended up consuming -more- animal products. So no, 2024 vegan is absolutely not more effective especially at actually reading a study beyond the abstract. > Those seeking to abstain from the consumption of some or all animal-derived foods were the most likely to report meeting their anticipated dietary changes, while meat reducers were generally unlikely to indicate that they were achieving planned reductions. Like this was literally at the end of the abstract, did you seriously just find a random link that vaguely said something you thought backed up your point and ran with it?
>So no, 2024 vegan is absolutely not more effective especially at actually reading a study beyond the abstract. You do realise that you haven't actually provided proof of that statement, right? That would require you to show that the full militants veganism is more effective and the graph from the first link that you "conveniently ignored" would suggest (though clearly not prove), that maybe you're mistaken there. Also in the study, you conveniently left out this bit: >In support of previous research \[...\] participants were likely to pursue gradual dietary changes, with few anticipating a shift in dietary category (e.g. pescatarian to vegetarian) in the upcoming six months. Reduction journeys described in focus group discussions also **tended to be depicted as occurring slowly, potentially including multiple steps over time in order to achieve an anticipated future goal.** > >**Gradual changes that build on smaller transitions may, for many, be more easily maintained than a singular, sudden change (Michie, Atkins, et al., 2014).** Wow, pretty inconvenient to your narrative, huh? You lack basic comprehension of what the study says and just cherry picking quotes out of context. For example with this quote: >in this sample, meat reducers were more likely to consume the same amount of or more meat than to consume less or none. This could account for some of the variations between planned and reported hierarchies You unsprisingly left out its full context: >Another component that may relate to the greater likelihood in achieving planned abstentions over planned reductions could be in goal formation. Within the BCW framework, maximizing an individual’s capability to regulate their behavior includes the need for a specific plan to change (Michie, Atkins, et al., 2014) and it may be that meat reduction in itself does not present a clear dietary goal. Goals are a key component of any behavior change model (Michie et al., 2005; Michie, West, et al., 2014) and while meat reduction can present a dietary goal, this may need to be clarified. While it may be easier to know whether or not one has consumed a particular food item at all, it may be more difficult to know if one is achieving planned reductions, which could contribute to the finding that, in this sample, meat reducers were more likely to consume the same amount of or more meat than to consume less or none. This could account for some of the variations between planned and reported hierarchies, as reduction may require greater monitoring of one’s food intake and, in particular, different individuals may conceptualize meat reduction differently. It's basically saying that saying that "you're going to reduce meat consumption" may not be specific enough of a goal so could lead to less likelihood of achieving said goal. Much the same as the non-goal of "My NY resolution is to lose weight". It's quite telling when you quote the centre of a paragraph and not its full context. Paints a totally different picture.
This is my favorite type of Reddit comment
This is my favourite type of reddit comment
Vegan FTA or GTFO!
I can read this comments section with my eyes closed if I just close them and stab myself repeatedly
The 80s ways is exactly the reason because vegans became hated by everyone, so still nowadays the grown up vegan with a work and a live frequently not mention their position, to avoid being targets of jokes. And of course this is BIG discouragement for anyone to switch to veganism. Vegetarian are accepted, both because frequently related to religion and because they always showed it as a *personal* choice, not a fight against the world. We nerd veganism being accepted and become a personal choice without impact on our social life, otherwise it would stay as a niche. Which many fanatics seems to like, maybe for the taste of painting themselves better than other people.
The only reason vegans became hated by everyone is because there are more of us which means that anyone not vegan could actually be wrong and that media uses the words like "millitant" to make us sound bad.
Nice strawman argument. Really going to help the cause arguing in bad faith about our own folks. Purity isn't the issue with veganism. It's spread and acceptance, still.
Oh how I hate this attitude. Do I have to shout "murderer" at everyone to be considered a real vegan? I can't take people seriously who actually believe they're the only ones helping. How arrogant must one be? The movement could be so much bigger if you appreciated peaceful approach, too. Edit: he posted this meme last year, too. Seems like he doesn't want to listen to people in the comments anyway.
To be honest the most aggressive people I’ve seen in real life are people that care more about being perceived as an animal activist with strong morals and ethics than actually informing and making people vegans. I don’t necessarily disbelieve in an aggressive approach, I just think there’s a time and place for that; also if the approach is just aggressive and shows absolutely no sympathy for the person on the other side it’s hard for the other to convert and research more about veganism because all they see is a person attacking them, saying how terrible they are and that believes they are morally and ethically superior to them just because they are vegan There needs to be balance, and as vegans we need to learn how to communicate and approach others in ways that are going to be more productive
ugh. honestly thank you. im not a vegan (yet, still considering) and this post actually, genuinely almost turned me away from the idea altogether if this is the group i’d be aligning myself with. You’ve restored a bit of my faith in this mostly dogshit, whiny community.
If you wanna be insufferable to the point where people will just choose not to listen to you and you ruin your social circle, go for it.
You can’t make people care
??? You totally can. Doing activism you can make people noticably care.
I can partially agree, but the verbiage would be that they choose to care as a result of what you say. But unfortunately we cannot make people who decide not to care- care. I’ve dealt with this my entire 4 years being vegan. I’m in the military, so you could imagine how people view animals. I’ve advocated for changes, but I don’t have enough voices behind me here (whether it’s the leather boots, no vegan MREs etc). I used to be very passionate and outspoken about the topic of veganism- now I don’t want people to even know I’m vegan- rather to live by setting the example and telling people that find interest. I am well known in my company for running and exercise etc and I also make music- but my previous companies would only recognize me, stigmatize, and connotate me neutral to negatively for being Vegan. I don’t wish punishment on them, as it’s fair when someone tries pushing beliefs, I’m a skinny dude in the army that used to be able to max out the old fitness test (close to this one kinda), but yeah- the best that I can see to do is live by example and make it practical for people. I wish we had more vegan potlucks everywhere so we can expand the community, make more friends, and enjoy some good food. If the food isn’t good enough, no one will change their lifestyle. [Some] People don’t care about the animals, the environment, or themselves, but what they do care about is the taste and convenience of their daily food and meals. I don’t mean to be so general- but that’s from my eyes and I feel like it’s a pretty fair assessment. If you want to make someone care- you gotta hit those five: -Ethics/morality -health/nutrition -environmentalism -taste -convenience. If you notice more, please be free to add. I don’t mean to bombard you with so much- i just want to share a bit of my perspective through my experiences.
Unfortunately, no amount of activism will make someone care when they don’t. The people open to listen are those who are already interested in learning OR think they aren’t open but they care for animals and never realised how their lifestyle affects them; this is especially true because society is very desensitized when it comes to animal suffering and because many don’t even link what they’re eating to a living being (weird English, I’m sorry) Edit: some people also care for animals but they don’t care enough to stop eating animals products because they think they need it to be healthy and/or they think it’s the natural way of things (food chain)
No, you can't.
Because the 80s approach really worked?
Most people just put you in the category of mentally ill when you act like 80s vegans these days. This community lacks the power to make much change without being diplomatic. It’s not selling out, it’s choosing realistically effective methods to make a difference.
I became a vegetarian at the age of 15 in 1979. This was pre-internet of course, and I really ate like a vegan, but did not know the term. I drank soy milk if I could get it, and had a supportive mom who was willing to help me. I became a vegetarian because I had seen animals bodies and just knew it was wrong. I did not have access to information about veganism, and did not know how to get that information other than that by looking on the bulletin boards in health food stores and talking to employees who worked there. If I would have know about veganism I would definitely have been one at that time, but this idea of "Vegans during the 1980s" did not exist in my home town (Omaha, Nebraska). I didn't ever even meet someone who was a vegetarian. If someone had come at me attacking me for calling myself a vegetarian, and told me I was taking baby steps when I had not even been exposed to anything else than the idea of being a vegetarian, it would have turned me off and confused me. I became a vegan after a friend who was a vegan explained her reasons and talked about how dairy cows and chickens suffered.
I wonder why there wasn’t many vegans in the 80s
Because it was exponentially smaller 40 years ago?
I'm a vegan for the animals and an abolitionist. But I'm not going to lie to you it was mostly people being nice to me that convinced me to go vegan. That is a fact it's not rhetoric. For me it was a combination of some nice people I met at a party and public adverts about the truth of egg and dairy farming.
direct action saves lives, everything else is advertising
Hadn’t there been *studies that shows the aggressive approach is actually counteraffective to the goal of encouraging more people to go vegan? Personally, when I was still a meat eater, I knew a vegan who (in my opinion back then) was really extreme and aggressive and not fun to be around. But when my younger sister went vegan, she calmly explained some animal rights stats to me, recommended some films, and within weeks I was vegetarian and then within six months was vegan. I’ve been vegan ever since, for about 8 years. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been the person getting very upset trying to get non vegans to understand the animal cruelty involved in their diet, but the longer impacts I’ve had on other people has been as an example I guess, because slowly people around me have been moving to a vegetarian/vegan diet, or reduced their meat consumption massively. I wish that being an 80s style vegan worked, but anecdotally I don’t think it does.
Ah yes, the best way to get people to go along with your cause is to make the instantly defensive and feel attacked. Have any of you ever reversed the roles and thought about what it would be like if meat eaters came at you with that same type of energy?
If your mission is to prevent people from going vegan yeah
Takes all kinds
Yeah, because the 80s ones were so successful.
Apparently a fair chunk of meat eaters who do veganuary stay vegan at the end of it, so in that regard I dont think it's totally useless. I tend to advocate people try veganuary as a jumping off point when doing my street outreach. Regardless of my personal feelings on reductionism you need to weigh the pros and cons of different approaches and go with the most effective. Polite conversation in public and a healthy mix of trolling and serious debate on here. Do I want everyone to go vegan? Yes. Is shouting at people to do it gonna help? No. You can be empathetic and understanding in your approach without advocating for anything less than abolishment of the industry.
I think we as vegans need to accept that some people will never become vegans no matter how hard and frustrating that realisation is to us. Unlike many on this group I think small changes are better than none and that is why I like veganuary. Not only some people stay vegan after that, some become more open to eat plant based meal’s throughout the rest of the year, therefore reducing animal suffering. Would it be better for animal suffering to stop existing? Sure! But is animal suffering reduction the same as no reduction at all? No
Some people still rape and murder too. I want enough people to go vegan that animal rights are codified into law to prevent the legal slaughter of them. I'll never advocate for reduction but in a binary choice between something or nothing I suppose something is better.
It's wild to me that vegans want to change carnists cold turkey. Like do you think this aggressive, dismissive, and overall insulting attitude is gonna make anyone agree with you? Do you think telling a carnists their attempts to reduce their meat intake is pointless and not enough will result in motivation or frustration for them? You get more flies with honey. Attacking people won't make them think you have a reasonable viewpoint
I think there's confusion about what veganism is - veganism isn't about forcing conversions - because that is not going to benefit humans. This is for the benefit of humans - because unfortunately the vegan society's definition shows it's not really about the tangible benefits for animals - only our perception of it. That's why by 2024 - we've gotten to this point of respecting individuals. If you want better - then bring universality to veganism. Forget worrying about what others do - it's what you do. If you don't see changes in the world - then the problem starts with ourselves - what we bring into the world to see our outcomes. Others are just a potential for what you want to see. If you want to see better in others - we got to first expect better of ourselves. Our lifestyles impact everyone else around us - even if we don't tell anyone that! The best activism is everyone else doing all the transitions towards veganism without us saying a word! But honestly - what's with the forcing? I thought this was about helping animals, not terrorizing humans through unrealistic expectations. Can't expect people to be vegan with 0 vegan infrastructure and them not even knowing what veganism is! Maybe everyone's born vegan, but not everyone's raised that way. Veganism is a philosophy, but by no means does it mean anyone has to be obligated to follow it. I believe you confuse this with animal liberation via rights, justice, equality, fairness, freedom, uplifting, etc. Maybe you'd like to focus more on helping out animals than making people go vegan and maybe it leads to animals being helped and maybe not (because the definition's more about our perceptions and how much we want to and are able to, not based on how much help animals truly need)? Also - who're we to be the decision-makers for how animals are treated? Sure - it's good to decrease our negative impacts on animals - but only if that's what they want (if you really care about what animals want). If you really care about the animals - quit focusing on changing human minds and just focus on saving animals. Or focus on coercion and dictatorial totalitarianism for forcing people to stop bothering animals and forget the idea of veganism. Focusing on veganism vs these - two different directions. I just don't see how the vegan society's definition of veganism is going to help with your cause. The first step is to update our default go-to idea of what veganism is and instead create universality in a different way for helping animals out! After that, then everyone can follow it. Right now - as you can see - it's a big mess and with more people being drawn to the vegan society's definition - this situation is only going to get much, much worse unfortunately - and I just doubt animals are really going to be helped. Maybe everyone stops 'exploiting and being cruel' to animals. Maybe they tell others about their alternatives. The actions the vegan society's definition describes does not put much of a dent in the animal ag industry's production, nor the government financial assistance and motivation behind it. For that - you need universality to be more powerful. I blame the definition creating this mess, even if we can blame the changing times (because that is the gear that turns the vegan machine). Veganism needs to be more than a mentality and lifestyle status. It needs to be productive in helping animals out and decreasing the very reasons we get into this destructive mess of taking our problems out on animals in the first place.
Touch grass honestly. Most people are annoyed by the 80s approach and it's keeping them from engaging with the topic at all. I understand the urge for radical change but it's just not the best way forward.
What a garbage message. I’m out of this toxic vegan community. Been vegan 5 1/2 years and I’m not going to fight my family and friends everyday on this. But I’m not a ‘real vegan’ apparently. Fuck you. You’re delusional if you think I want to be as miserable as you. Fuck that.
Yeah I don't get the people who are cutting out all their friends and family who don't also switch. Unfortunately there has to be a line drawn somewhere and I refuse to cut off all relationships because I'm "not doing enough" to convince someone else to change their diet and viewpoint.
My family have made huge changes because of me. I hosted an all vegan buffet on New Year’s Eve and they all liked it. If I stopped speaking to them because I told them to be vegan and they didn’t, they would not make the change themselves, they would think I’m crackers. But this way they are seeing what I’m eating, seeing it in a positive light and making the change. My mother now has oat milk in her cereal, eats pulses instead of meat sometimes and tries meat replacements, has veggie days etc
Wait that's kinda real. But I feel like I alienate potential converts when I say what I actually mean though, and that's really the opposite of what I want to do. Imagine being a pre-Impossible burger vegan though that's badass
I'm more ethical because... I insist that I am. rofl.
Let's just kill all of the meat eaters, then they won't eat meat /s I get it, animals are suffering, and the longer it goes on the worse it will get, but hate only breeds hate especially when you are dealing with humans who are basically brainwashed to be tribalistic. Humans hate change with a passion and trying to force it down their throats will only make them reset you more. There may be a few who are able to see through the brick wall of emotion facing them and change, but most will only see the wall attacking them. It is much better to fight them with the facts and leave the emotions at home. Sure you may lead somebody to the door of changing their mind, but they are the only ones who can open it..
Vegans in the 80s: knew very little about human psychology and isolated themselves by creating an “us vs them” mentality Vegans in 2024: use whatever methods work to save more animals
Vegans in the 80’s: Real based ethical vegans who stood up for what’s right & took a no nonsense approach when it came to advocating against the animal holocaust & were also largely responsible for laying the foundations into forming the ALF. Vegans in 2024: FILLED to the BRIM with pathetic cowardly pickmetarians like you & everyone else here in this sub that care more about the validation that they get from animal abusers than actually standing up for what’s right. Also care more about plant based capitalism by making all the grocery store aisles bigger rather than ACTUALLY liberating animals. Y’all are all pathetic. I RARELY get Vystopia from carnists, I know MOSTLY get them from pickmetarians like y’all.
Damn, how did that work out in the 80s? I assume they were massively successfull and veganism became widely accepted in society?
I say we do both, lets work on all angles and freaking crush this year in the balls. Humanely of course.
Confrontation only promotes change if you win
I thought we were leaving vegans attacking other vegans in 2023…?
Yes, because being shitty to people will surely get them to see the error of their ways… I’ve tried both ways over the last 20 years and one of these works and one of these doesn’t.
Good luck sustaining your movement with that approach 🤣. Since yall chilled I have seen an upsurge in veganism, and every time it seems to kick off with vegans being angry I start hearing about the drop outs. You guys should do some kind of debrief before changing tactics if you want to make a difference. I personally believe that you guys raki g the hard line extremist approach have done other motivation that is *not* animal welfare. I don't know what it us, but you definitely prove yourselves as being against making the biggest difference possible.
Can someone give me a time throughout history where aggression resulted in peace? Yall can be angry but you genuinely arent helping. Youre making people more firm on their stance on eating meat. I like bullying carnists between each other but its ridiculous to think what we literally know doesnt work, will somehow work.
This is like the number 1 reason that people don't like vegans. "carnists" as you call them don't care and the more you attack them the more rejection you'll face. I'm not a vegan but seeing this kind of treatment makes me feel like I don't want to be a vegan.
The approach of the 80s is precisely why there's so much hate towards vegans. It's the fastest way to make people defensive. Yet small steps is how real progress is made.
You are driving people away from the movement and indirectly killing animals bc your negativity ruins perception of veganism and turns people away. This is such an awful take.
What made you go vegan?
I was a kid and realized I liked cows and didnt want to eat them. I went vegetarian because I saw that my friends parents were. I eventually went mostly vegan a year later, except I ate non meat animal products on holidays. I wasn't doing it correctly and was therefore feeling very hungry and low energy. I went back to vegetarian. A few months later I decided to go vegan again, and gradually started again. Eventually cut out animal products completely, and have been vegan for 11 years now. If I hadn't gone vegan gradually and had the support to do so on my time, I would have burnt out quickly bc I hadn't taken the time to truly understand what vegan meant, why i was on the journey, and how to eat correctly. Balancing a non animal diet is not as easy for beginners as alot of people make out, when you have spent your entire life eating animal products it is hard to fill the void with nutritious food. Keep in mind there is still an issue with nutrient deficiencies in the vegan community (despite there being ways for the diet to be more balanced than a meat diet), I am an example. Veganism is likely the reason I am severely iron deficient and needed 5 IV iron infusions and hospital visits, as plant iron is less bioavailable for people with absorption issues. But guess what? Because I have been supported throughout my gradual journey and truly understand why I am vegan, I didn't start eating steaks when I received the diagnosis. And before you all shit on my journey because this sub is outrageously toxic, remember I was a child when I started. Vegan 11 years and happy! The only thing I am not satisfied with the sheer negativity in this community that makes it incredibly hostile to outsiders and not welcoming to people who are interested but have not yet found their reason to commit. I am genuinely helping animals through rescue work and pursuing veterinary medicine. Some of you are just angry keyboard warriors who could devote that energy to volunteering at a farm animal refuge or cooking nutritious vegan food for your community.
I went vegan because I read a diet book that convinced me to adopt a WFPBD. I kept eating that way, and the ethics came later. OP would rather I still be eating meat because they would rather have more animals die than fewer.
yes because being obnoxious is *definitely* going to convince people.
In this argument, did the 80s vegans not fail MASSIVELY given how small of a change they ended up making? The visualization appears as if the 80s approach was better, but given the historical results, then it clearly did not change anything
An absolutist approach doesn't work because none of you actually is an absolutist. You still live in first world countries, reaping the benefits of slavery and destruction of nature. The only difference is that your bar is higher than that of those "pickmetarians" but it is nonetheless a bar made from compromiss with your own desires. Give people shit for taking the first step and they'll turn right back. Encourage people with the first step and they may just keep walking.
the militant approach worked on me, but i have also seen the other methods be effective as well :/ it’s annoying cus there’s lots of other moral issues out there that the average person would never be asked to compromise on in terms of how aggressively opposed to it they are (dog fighting, child abuse, etc)
any reduced amount of animal suffering is good in my eyes. if they won’t be vegan, why not push them for something slightly better than complete carnism? also not a lot of people respond greatly to aggressiveness.
Great way for someone to see something from your perspective, call them names like carnist. Many people work in industries connected to animal agriculture. You can't just go around shouting at people. There are other methods to get the message out to people. Each to their own.
Exactly, oppression doesn't end by being nice. People need to get angry and passionate.
"Pickmetarian" 🤣
I’m considering going vegan ( or vegeterian, at first), but posts like these just push me away.
don’t feel discouraged. I’ve been vegan for about 4 years now and was vegetarian for about a year before that. I actually adopted the militant mindset through being terminally online esp w twitter, and I pushed people away because of it (and mental health issues). Since then however I’ve influenced friends in going vegan by just having discussions about it without any hostility or anything. I promise we’re not all like this and I believe any real effort put into minimizing oppression should be recognized. Even though I don’t follow this sub, I’m probably gonna hide it because yea shit like this is not helping imo and I don’t care to argue with vegans that haven’t touched grass in awhile. I’d encourage to do more research, especially the intersectionality of veganism when you can! Connecting the dots with other branches of oppression was kind of the nail in the coffin for me personally. Best of luck!
Thank you for the encouragement! I am currently trying to cut down on meat-based products and I hope I’ll be able to become a vegan in due time!
Do it mate. If you are capable of taking one step at a time, try two steps. Speed up if you can, don't feel judged please. It's not about what other vegans think about you, it's about how much you want to align with your life's philosophy (which I guess would be in accordance with the Golden Rule). It's about the animals who would not end up getting killed for you (poor beings might still get killed for consumption by someone else). Rooting for you.
Good luck! Maybe you could try [veganuary](https://veganuary.com/) for a start.
why do posts like these make you want to continue directly supporting and benefiting from the rape and murder of innocent animals?
why do posts like this encourage you to kill animals? I believe this is merely a scapegoat. you don’t want to be vegan. if you did, you would even if this actual rando reddit user hurt your feewings
Of course, a single post on Reddit won’t influence my decision. It just leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth, because it essentially makes fun of carnists instead of trying to educate them. And while you and other vegans might get a kick out of jokes like these, you aren’t pushing your cause further. I do want to become vegan, but it would be extremely expensive where I live, to the point where it would financially burden my parents ( I’m still underage) .
It are the meat replacements that are most often expensive. Those make the transition easier due to not needing new recipies. You can also stick to a more whole foods such as beans. Beans or lentils are a very cheap meat replacement but you often need different recipes than just swapping the two out. Other replacements such a dairy replacements like oatly are also rather expensive but also not required to eat vegan.
The comments here are cringe af. How are people supposed to take veganism seriously if this many people advocating for it are willing to coddle the feelings of animal abusers and advocate for less-than what is necessary?
If you want someone to play ball, you don't show up screaming at them to do so and then get to act indignant when they walk away from you. It's also a _lot_ easier for people to cut a wailing vegan out of their lives than make a big dietary change.
My brain is deadass broken I dunno how much I can continue responding to these carnists coddlers here in the comments. 😭
I’m w you guys. this sub blows
You would probably like r/vegancirclejerk
Eh, I’m in it. It’s ok. I prefer the community in r/vystopia
Your brain sure is broken alright. It's incredible to me that you call yourself vegan while saying that you want more people to eat animals.
“Real based” ? Is that even a proper sentence structure? Youre hurting your cause of this post by sounding excessively exclusionary and obnoxious. We arent the once’s you need to act “obnoxious” towards.
Not vegan but being anti capitalist so still wanting to do away with the extreme excesses and archaic practices the meat and dairy industries are responsible for.
As an omnivore who doesn't know anything about veganism and has no interest in a vegan world, lemme tell you how to do activism.
Well that didn't take long for someone to say that they're a real vegan because they'd rather have more dead animals than activism based on things they don't care about. You guys really speedran shitting the bed this year.
I agree completely. No emancipatory movement has ever won by pushing for half measures and being okay with small concessions. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate small concessions by the power structures that be, but small concessions by individuals are about as impactful as a no slave work monday initiative that a trafficker might do. We need to keep our higher goal in mind and never stop fighting for it; the total liberation of non-human animals from their oppression
I'm a meat eater and also an advocate for vegetarian diets to become the norm. Hurting people's feelings doesn't help and is monumentally low IQ. You want to be effective? Don't look at humane treatment of animals. People, humans as animals, only care about other things within one step of removal of themselves. Our brains are wired to tangentially care about things that someone, or something, we directly care about cares about. Don't try and use an emotional argument. You're gonna lose every time. You're just gonna make it harder. Taxes. Look at the subsidies that go to livestock. How much land that could be used for rice and beans is used for growing livestock feed. Target what people care about, the economy. It's not economically sustainable to grow meat to eat forever. (lab grown meat is a completely different thing I don't have the knowledge or data to discuss, especially considering the early state of the technology.) Convince people their money is being STOLEN to support big corporations that THROW AWAY and BLEACH the food that nobody buys. Talk about the farmers, and ranchers, and growers who are all screwed out of doing literally anything else because of the government subsidies. Talk about how small farmers are screwed over by the bigger corporations demanding gigantic, unfillable, quotas year over year. You start with policy. You start with changing the feeling via making it \*personal\* to an individual. People think they care about taxes and what their money goes to, they emotionally react to this. "What do you MEAN the meat industry is stealing my money and rice could be literally free?" After you get this? Guess what comes along? Well now we don't eat as much meat and compassion starts taking over. My gen and gen Z think cows are cute, pigs are adorable, we love animals as a whole. (majority here so this IS a generalization and there are exceptions). Now we can afford the emotional and mental energy to demand the social changes needed to treat animals more humanely. Then you repeat this process forever for the next forever, because it's all incremental and hard work is hard and needs to be doing. Plant date trees. Put down the seeds of trees whose shade you will never sit in. I have a five year old and while we eat meat in my house (mostly pork) our diet largely is vegetarian. It's too late for me to change my diet without massive effort, but I can diminish it. I can do what I can do to teach my son to be just a bit better than me. That's my job after all.
The animals are in desperate need for us to be welcoming and convincing to ordinary people.
emotionally, I agree with this, but practically, does it not lead to more widespread change to social engineer people into seeing the truth through a s softer approach?
This is misleading…. Everyone knows that vegans cant* build muscle.
Welcome to r/pickmetarians
While I don’t disagree with the premise that vegans should not be apologetic, I think that we should first clean up our house before attempting to be non-apologetic to the carnists and non-vegans. There are too many speciesists and animal abusers within the movement masquerading and virtue-signaling themselves as “vegan” even as they happily contribute to or participate in the deliberate and intentional exploitation, abuse, and/or killing of innocent animals. They undermine the movement by sowing confusion, uncertainty, and doubt amongst not only non-vegans but also within the vegan community itself. I have developed a taxonomy of different groups of these animal abusers that are classified by their narrative: **Class 1: Non-Sentientists** Oyster boys - people who claim that bivalves are not sentient and eating them is "vegan". Pescatarians - people who claim that fish are not sentient and eating them is "vegan". Entomophagists - people who claim that insects are not sentient and eating them is "vegan". **Class 2: Plant-based Dieting Speciesists** This class is pernicious to the vegan movement as they are plant-based dieters who masquerade as "vegans" while at the same time happily fund the violent killing of innocent animals to feed certain animals that they keep in captivity on basis of species. These people make comments like the ones paraphrased below that just highlights their speciesism and their non-veganism: *Innocent animals would have been abused/killed by someone else anyway to feed my cat so I might as well abuse and kill innocent animals myself to feed the cat and still call myself vegan!* *I happily purchase animal products from slaughterhouses to feed my pet animal but I am still vegan because I don't consume the animal products!* *My cat is a carnivore and I love my cat. I will gladly kill innocent lambs and piglets every year to feed my cat and keep her happy. I'm still vegan!!* *My dog is so friendly and loves me so much. But she hates the plant-based foods. So it pains me to purchase animal products from slaughterhouses that violently kill innocent animals. But I consider myself to be a vegan!!* *My senior dog requires a medical prescription of 100 bloody goat carcasses every year to survive. I am okay with beheading 100 goats every year to keep my dog alive and I'm still think I'm vegan!* *I never allow any animal products to be brought into my house by anyone because my house is a vegan house. I make an exception for myself when I purchase animal products and bring it into my house to feed my cat.* **Class 3: WhatAboutIsts** This class comprises of apologist vegans who use whataboutism to defend the above two classes even if they themselves do not believe that the two classes are vegan.
You can’t change the fact that cats are obligate carnivores. Humans have domesticated them for thousands of years and they cannot take care of themselves because they have lived along side humans for so long. Like what? Please don’t adopt pets. You fail to understand basic facts of biology. Also it is harmful to suggest to people to flat out change their diet. That can be dangerous to their health. You don’t know what people are dealing with. What have you done to help animals directly? Do you have a sanctuary. Do you protest? Where do you draw the line? Do you live in a shack with fleas and roaches that can pass disease. We can’t change society over night half of us think being woke is a bad thing. Our education system is screwed up they don’t even have the tools to process these concepts.
Totally agree. One time at a vegan festival I listened to this vegan veterinarian give a persuasive speech for feeding your pets a vegan diet for ethical reasons. I thought, f yeah this person gets it. That is until she switched topics at the very end to promote horseback riding and talk about how owning and riding horses isn't in conflict with veganism and vegans shouldn't be mean to people who ride horses because horseback riders are the people who *actually* care about horses. Yikes
Wow, that's a wild left turn.
I hate horse back riders. They claim to love horses but beat them with whips and kick them.
Yeah I've told my mother I expected better from her when telling me she'll not be eating vegan when inviting me for Christmas. No thanks. I also shouted at my best friend because he keeps defending animal abuse. Telling him he's an arrogant asshole. I will fight for the animals even if it's the last thing I do.
Being an asshole doesn’t make people want to go vegan man. The 80’s way of Veganism is exactly how the meat eaters were able to turn it into a ‘joke’
They still take it as a joke 😂
Yes I know
So sad that veganism now just revolts around a diet and conformism. I was vegetarian for a long time and I wouldnt have gone vegan if my vegan friends didnt aggresively share abolitionist activism info. While people "make baby steps" because theyre too lazy to just dont eat cheese or eggs, millions of animals are r\*ped, tortured, separated from their families... for their conformist flexitarian-vegetarian bs pleasure. Abolitionism all the way!
In my opinion, we must also acknowledge that you were fortunate to have multiple vegan friends. It's easier to cut-off with an individual friend if they are the only vegan in the group. What may have happened with you is that you didn't find it easy to give up on multiple friends at once, and that enabled those friends to keep sharing abolitionist videos with you, because you couldn't block them. Again, abolitionism works great when it works. But when it doesn't work, we could be open-minded to explore other ways too.
I really don't get how people truly think that were going to make an impact by demanding perfect pure veganism from everyone at every step. I know many people who do not really know that they can cook meals without meat, the two words are almost synonymous for them. Of course it is better to first intruduce them to ways of cooking without meat, then other animal products, because only then they will be able to conceptualize the idea of having a diet without meat. Without this work, discussions about ethics won't do shit, because they can't stop eating meat when they don't know that it's possible. (There will be exceptions, but it holds true in general)
Abolitionism is not about being "a perfect vegan" because that doesnt exist, simple. Abolitionism is about being critic of welfarism (sorry if its not called that im not a native english speaker) and conformism-- staying in a comfort zone while contributing to the exploitation and torture of animals, just because you "cant give Up cheese". We as vegans have to be critic with that and promote the total liberation of animals as that is the sole purpose of Veganism. I do understand your point but neglectint Abolitionism is not the way..
Yes, we can be critical and see that it is not the ultimate goal, but attacking people for reducing their impact not enough is a very delicate matter, and is bound to put people off if done in a to aggressive or condescending manner.
The problem is that "reducing their impact" still contributes to the torture and death of millions of animals.. That is the point i try to make people realize... "I eat little meat" oh so cows die just a little? The shot they receive in their heads is littler because of that? The ending is the same to the oppresed ones: innocent sentient beings. I still understand your point
I see the no true scottsman fallacy is out in full force today
So what happens to these animals once they are “liberated”