Gary Yourofsky's rule for eating with non-vegans

[Jebus]

I do not contest that he has contributed a lot to the vegan movement and saving animals. However, I do think that his approach to convincing others to become vegan has been a lot less successful that it would have if he'd been more empathetic (to people's ignorance) and less aggressive, and I assume, it has not beneficial to the majority of meat-eaters who have watched his videos or heard about him.

You make it sound as if he was randomly put in this privileged position where millions of people listen to him. NO, he earned this position because his videos became popular. By your reasoning, the softer vegans should be the ones with the most Youtube hits.

[Kyron]

You make it sound as if he was randomly put in this privileged position where millions of people listen to him. NO, he earned this position because his videos became popular. By your reasoning, the softer vegans should be the ones with the most Youtube hits.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Though, I doubt that it was his videos that made him popular. I haven't watched him very closely, however, his most popular video has 74k views, hardly "millions" - though granted, there is a mirrored video of his with a click-bait title that did gain 2m views. A quick browse of his Wiki gives a fairly good overview of his career. Obviously I'd need more data to be sure, but I think it's pretty likely that he started gaining popularity around the time he was being featured on the News in Israel a lot. And the most popular, aggressive vegans, often are flooded with trolls and people who disagree with them. VeganGains is a prime example.

What I'm saying is that, his attitude may be reassuring and popular with fellow vegans who enjoy his "owning" and in-your-face attitude towards those who try to justify eating meat - but his goal is to educate people on the meat/dairy/egg-industry and show people how easy it is to stop the unnecessary suffering, not be a complete dick and cause polarization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization) between the two sides. He seems to have the toxic attitude that meat-eaters are some-kind of evil rather than misunderstood people who for the most part are kind-loving and who could not consciously hurt or kill an animal. - They are a product of the society we have grown up in, and it's hard to break free of something that you've been told all your life is morally acceptable. It is not an excuse, but to change it, it requires some understanding and a very different approach.

[bobo0100]

someone who's contributed far more to veganism, Peter Singer. If for not reason other than his reasonable.

[Jebus]

someone who's contributed far more to veganism, Peter Singer.

Please explain how a non-vegan who is generally not well liked among vegans has contributed so much more to veganism than Gary Yourofsky.

[EmperorPalpatine]

someone who's contributed far more to veganism, Peter Singer. If for not reason other than his reasonable.

I have to disagree here, Gary Yourofsky's lecture are known to be responsible for the conversions of many, wheras Peter Singer wrote a book, albeit a good one, 30 years ago. As previously mentioned he isn't even vegan, and advocates "happy meat"

Kind of reminds me of atheists complaining that Dawkins is too militant.

[Jebus]

his most popular video has 74k views, hardly "millions"

According to Adaptt.org: "As of January 1, 2015 Gary Yourofsky has given 2,660 lectures to more than 60,000 people at 186 schools in 30 states and several Israeli cities/schools, including the U. of Alabama, U. of Florida and Georgia Tech. The latter has been translated into more than 30 languages for over 10 million YouTube hits."

Are you claiming that these numbers are inflated?

If one believes meat eating is immoral, it's only natural to be angry about the fact that over 90% of all people eat meat. Hence, one can either be honest about it and express one's anger (like Yourofsky) or one can be an actor and act in a non-angry fashion. This is also ok if one believes the soft approach will have the most success.

However, vegans who are not angry about the current state of things are either ignorant or not in touch with reality. Are you ignorant or are you an actor? I suspect there may be some cognitive dissonance present, as you have been a non-vegan most of your life and are not comfortable with someone reminding you of how immoral your recent behavior was.

I think it's good that vegans approach the issue differently as different methods work with different people. However, I believe it is highly immoral for a vegan to brand an honest hard working vegan like Yourofsky an asshole. I would save that word for people who contribute to animal suffering rather than those who try hard to reduce it.

[Lightningman_42]

Well said, Jebus. I've been following this thread (especially it's recent posts), and I'd like to provide my perspective as well.

I think it's helpful to the vegan movement to have advocates like Gary Yourofsky, for the reasons that you described. Different methods work on different people. Not only that, but Gary's method might be the most effective on the greatest number of people. I'm puzzled at how not only nonvegans, but many vegans as well, insist that vegan advocates ought to be as calm, mellow, and charming as possible. Gary's harsh words and palpable anger might turn people off at first, but they're necessary to demonstrate the severity of the problems he's bringing to light. He uses severe descriptions like "slavery", "holocaust", and "massacre". He is an honest man, and these words are the best ones that he can use to describe what humans are doing to their fellow animals. Therefore, his manner of speaking demonstrates exactly what his view is on humans' actions towards animals, and the information he presents justifies it.

Honesty is of great importance in this movement. Not only intellectual honesty (we must avoid using any pseudoscience in our advocacy), but also honesty in our attitudes towards humans' use and abuse of animals. Animal agriculture is a severe bane to the Earth and its sentient beings, and when I explain my stance against it, I do not want my message to be so softspoken that my audience brush it off.

Some people might prefer to have issues of fundamental justice be presented to them by sweet-talking politician-types who avoid any harsh language that hurts their delicate sensibilities. Their are plenty of activists like that already. Those who have an adversion to blunt honesty, however, should not project their thin-skinned preferences onto all others.

[garrethdsouza]

I agree that different approaches work with different people and I don't have issue with that.


However I do have problems with other issues which have been raised. Just because someone is doing much for veganism doesn't mean that they have a license to do otherwise egregious actions and we should turn a blind eye to/condone these problems.. That is nothing but hero worship/following authority on everything even if they are wrong on some issues.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NU-xuTW-eos
He said people shouldn't donate to a third world country like Nepal that was faced with a huge natural catastrophe , the reason being they had cattle slaughter during the gadhimai festival.

Aren't the number slaughtered much less than those killed routinely in first world countries? Also most vegans were nonvegans at some point too, shouldn't you give them time especially considering this is a third world country and its often economically difficult for people to go vegan in different circumstances. Also ignoring the fact that there may have been people who were vegan too. Shouldn't they get help? While he's dissuading people from giving aid to nepal, he says his misanthropy causes no actual harm. Umm?

I also heard some issues regarding Palestine. He said Palestinians are the most psychotic group of people on the planet and stands by that claim. On accusations of racism he says he hates all races equally. But stands by his statement on the Palestinians. Doesn't that show that he does in fact consider one group worse than others? His reason for hating them is because some government officials claimed that they would use a nuclear bomb if they had one. This from a american, from the only nation that has actually used nuclear bombs on people.

Stuff like f**k human rights is also v easy to say for a privileged cis gendered white first world male. I see it as a false dichotomy that you have to choose animal or human rights, why not both?

[brimstoneSalad]

However, I believe it is highly immoral for a vegan to brand an honest hard working vegan like Yourofsky an asshole.

Of course he's an asshole, he's just a highly effective asshole. Being an asshole isn't always a bad thing. I'm an asshole.

It takes a certain kind of personality to get free media attention, and that's something Yourofsky has done very well.

People are critical of PETA for the same kind of thing -- doing 'extreme' seeming stuff for media attention, like the silly press release about Mario. But that took them all of a couple hours to write, and then it was all over the internet.

You can't argue with the media efficacy of controversy.

The trick is to walk a very thin line. You have to be controversial enough to get media attention, but not so controversial to be seen as dangerous and fail to reach anybody, or convert vegans back into meat eaters to spite you.

The thing with veganism now is that the vast majority of people are so uninformed, that reaching them at all is a challenge. Even if 90% of a hundred million people reject the message outright because of how it was delivered, you still reached 10% of that number, which is more than you would have without hundreds of millions or possibly even billions (by now) of dollars in free publicity through media interviews.
Being non-controversial might give you a 90% success rate with a much smaller audience of several thousand, but that's not necessarily better.

10% of a hundred million is bigger than 90% of ten thousand. 1% of a hundred million is bigger than 100% of ten thousand. A message with a small audience will never beat the efficacy of a message to a larger audience, no matter how much more agreeable it is, provided the larger message at least isn't deconverting people.

However I do have problems with other issues which have been raised. Just because someone is doing much for veganism doesn't mean that they have a license to do otherwise egregious actions and we should turn a blind eye to/condone these problems.. That is nothing but hero worship/following authority on everything even if they are wrong on some issues.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NU-xuTW-eos
He said people shouldn't donate to a third world country like Nepal that was faced with a huge natural catastrophe , the reason being they had cattle slaughter during the gadhimai festival.

Of course, he needs to be criticized, and criticized harshly for saying those kinds of things.

Consider this:

One vegan says something outrageous. Another vegan harshly criticizes the first for it.

This is media gold. Even if it's irrelevant who wins (or if nobody wins), the fact of getting these kinds of conversations out there and breeding awareness may be more effective than anything.

Maybe we should argue against him even if we don't disagree with him?

People arguing with each other is way more interesting than one controversial figure giving a lecture. And it shows that there are different perspectives to those watching.

As long as veganism isn't tied in any way to falsifiable pseudoscience or bad logic (which are, I believe, most responsible for recidivism), a variety of attitudes and approaches -- and maybe even those approaches fighting each other -- could be a good thing.
Even a religious approach could be useful, provided it isn't masquerading as rational (which is the biggest problem with people like Francione). I don't know how much Yourofsky falls into that camp.

Infighting can be counterproductive, but it can also be interesting. And interesting sells papers.
It's something to consider, anyway.

[Kyron]

his most popular video has 74k views, hardly "millions"

According to Adaptt.org: "As of January 1, 2015 Gary Yourofsky has given 2,660 lectures to more than 60,000 people at 186 schools in 30 states and several Israeli cities/schools, including the U. of Alabama, U. of Florida and Georgia Tech. The latter has been translated into more than 30 languages for over 10 million YouTube hits."

Are you claiming that these numbers are inflated?

I'm not saying they're inflated, neither am I saying that his speeches have not been effective in ways. What I said was:

What I'm saying is that, his attitude may be reassuring and popular with fellow vegans who enjoy his "owning" and in-your-face attitude towards those who try to justify eating meat - but his goal is to educate people on the meat/dairy/egg-industry and show people how easy it is to stop the unnecessary suffering, not be a complete dick and cause polarization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization) between the two sides. He seems to have the toxic attitude that meat-eaters are some-kind of evil rather than misunderstood people who for the most part are kind-loving and who could not consciously hurt or kill an animal. - They are a product of the society we have grown up in, and it's hard to break free of something that you've been told all your life is morally acceptable. It is not an excuse, but to change it, it requires some understanding and a very different approach.

On a side note, I simply doubt that his videos were the main cause for his popularity, it's an unimportant subject, but with clickbait titles like "BEST SPEECH EVER"... It's not surprising he has gained many views - http://i.imgur.com/DxmvYbS.png - I think it's more likely that the media attention after his lectures/protests/activism was the cause for his videos becoming popular, not the other way around.

If one believes meat eating is immoral, it's only natural to be angry about the fact that over 90% of all people eat meat. Hence, one can either be honest about it and express one's anger (like Yourofsky) or one can be an actor and act in a non-angry fashion. This is also ok if one believes the soft approach will have the most success.

However, vegans who are not angry about the current state of things are either ignorant or not in touch with reality. Are you ignorant or are you an actor? I suspect there may be some cognitive dissonance present, as you have been a non-vegan most of your life and are not comfortable with someone reminding you of how immoral your recent behavior was.

I think it's good that vegans approach the issue differently as different methods work with different people. However, I believe it is highly immoral for a vegan to brand an honest hard working vegan like Yourofsky an asshole. I would save that word for people who contribute to animal suffering rather than those who try hard to reduce it.

I disagree. You make it sound like most vegans are born vegan and raised in a world that commits these atrocities and doesn't understand it.
I'm not an "angry" person - It breaks my heart that things are the way they are right now, and of course I'm angry that animals are being killed by humans, but I do not direct my anger at meat-eaters, who are just ignorant to the topic and desperately don't want to feel like a shit person. I empathize with that as I was in the same position, and thus understand why that approach would not have worked on me. I am perfectly fine with you reminding me how immoral my belief/actions were, there is no cognitive dissonance, it sounds like you're just trying to brush off what I'm saying in the same way I would if I'd said "well, you probably don't want to think bad of someone you most likely idolize."

If you'd read the wiki article I linked to about Attitude Polarization (or brushed through the many studies on this) you'd see that this isn't some simple opinion on things I have, it's backed up by research. It's a phenomenon of the human mind. And that's the main reasoning for my argument as to why Gary's attitude is non-beneficial. Not to mention his many violent outbursts.

I can't see how it's immoral for me to brand him an asshole. As someone else pointed out, he's a racist, misanthropic, violent person. Just because he's an animal-rights activist and is vegan like us, that excuses it? What do you think constitutes being branded "an asshole"?

Honesty is of great importance in this movement. Not only intellectual honesty (we must avoid using any pseudoscience in our advocacy), but also honesty in our attitudes towards humans' use and abuse of animals. Animal agriculture is a severe bane to the Earth and its sentient beings, and when I explain my stance against it, I do not want my message to be so softspoken that my audience brush it off.

Some people might prefer to have issues of fundamental justice be presented to them by sweet-talking politician-types who avoid any harsh language that hurts their delicate sensibilities. Their are plenty of activists like that already. Those who have an adversion to blunt honesty, however, should not project their thin-skinned preferences onto all others.

Of course it is, however you can be honest and present it in an effective way. Which is better, an audience of already-vegans cheering you on and agreeing with you - whilst many meat eaters think you're a snobby asshole who's judging them and becoming more sure in their beliefs, or an audience of meat-eaters agreeing with you, thinking about your argument, and then becoming vegan?

I'm not saying we need to be soft-spoken - We need to be informative, not judgmental. Let people judge themselves. I refer to the Attitude Polarization phenomena again.

Stuff like f**k human rights is also v easy to say for a privileged cis gendered white first world male. I see it as a false dichotomy that you have to choose animal or human rights, why not both?

I agree with nearly-all of what you said except this quote. Ha, ha. It's unrelated, but referring to people as privileged for ____ traits they have, is still generalization/sexist/racist/etc. and I don't like to promote the "feeling in the air" that being a minority makes you a better person. I think of people on individual levels. And I understand you're talking on a societal level, but trying to "turn the tables" in society isn't ideal. We should be balancing things to get equality.