Changing the Vegan Image

[VeganSquare]

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts concerning how to change the vegan image for the better. One thing that kept me away from veganism a lot of years was the belief that vegans are just modern hippies with an extra helping of guilt. A friend sent me a link to a fascinating article which cites a study claiming that only drug addicts are subjected to more societal disapproval than vegans. I'll post the link below, but I'm more interested in your thoughts on a solution.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... gan-hatred

[Jebus]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... gan-hatred

Excellent article.

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts concerning how to change the vegan image for the better.

That's the million dollar question. The problem is that we can't just shut up when carnists bring up pseudoscience and other irrational justifications for their actions. If we did, vegans would probably still be under .1% of the population. Despite the backlash, veganism is steadily growing so we (as a group) must be doing something right.

When casually chatting with "strangers" it is probably better to focus on the nutritional benefits of veganism than to jump right into the ethical arguments. If the discussion turns to ethicality it is important to come across as non-judgmental as possible. This is something that Earthling Ed does extremely well.

[teo123]

When I said to my father that I wanted to be a vegetarian, he immediately remembered some lady who was misled into going on a keto-diet (I don't know if it was a keto-vegan diet or some other form of a keto-diet) and who died of a heart attack soon after, and he thought vegetarian diet would somehow have a similar effect. It seems to me that the reason people are so afraid of vegan diets is, paradoxically, the fact that there are so many diet fads out there, even though many of them are exactly the opposite of a high-carb vegan diet.

[Lay Vegan]

I think we can help to eliminate the judgmental stereotype by encouraging fellow vegans to think critically about their own arguments for veganism. Basically, we should reject dogma and make stronger more robust arguments to support our values. E.g., Name the Trait, Singer's Argument from Marginal Cases, Name the Justification...

I think we could also help to negate the stereotype by being more welcoming of non-vegan allies (vegetarian, pescatarian, flexitarian, invaso-vorian, freegan etc.) who also recognize the glaring moral problems with animal agriculture, and envision a future where where raising animals for food is obsolete. Basically, veganism is only 1 of many heuristics working toward the same goal.

Unnatural Vegan has been doing amazing work on the YouTube platform for just over a decade, and she’s a great example of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVU9IYcyl_k

Being vegan is a good heuristic because 99% of the time, it’s right. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t work on going beyond veganism. And it doesn’t mean that we should be critical of non vegans who are following a different heuristic.

In short, we should make better arguments and be more accepting of non-vegan allies.

When casually chatting with "strangers" it is probably better to focus on the nutritional benefits of veganism than to jump right into the ethical arguments. If the discussion turns to ethicality it is important to come across as non-judgmental as possible. This is something that Earthling Ed does extremely well.

I actually avoid doing this because it feeds into the assumption that veganism is a "dietary choice" rather than an ethical decision to recognize and respect the interests of sentient lives. In casual conversation I like to use NTT as a step of the Socratic Method to draw out others' assumptions and point out the inconsistencies.

To each his own tho.

[Jebus]

I think we could also help to negate the stereotype by being more welcoming of non-vegan allies (vegetarian, pescatarian, flexitarian, invaso-vorian, freegan etc.)

I'm not sure how you would define "being more welcoming" but I hope it doesn't include supporting the common viewpoint that simply being better than average is sufficient. I think vegetarians need to be reminded that they cause a great deal of suffering to cows. Many of them consider themselves animal lovers and simply don't understand how taking a bit of milk from cows is a bad thing.

we should make better arguments

Did you read the article in the OP's post? It suggests that strong arguments is what makes us (vegans) so hated.

I actually avoid doing this because it feeds into the assumption that veganism is a "dietary choice" rather than an ethical decision to recognize and respect the interests of sentient lives.

I think your missing the point here. This discussion is not about what we (vegans) know to be true. It is about how to improve the vegan image and ultimately grow the movement. I suggest you read the article on top of the page.

Dietary vegans very often become ethical vegans later. Hence, we will increase the number of ethical vegans by encouraging people to become dietary vegans.

To each his own tho.

??? Why not instead try to decipher what is the most productive method and then encourage that to be used.

[Lay Vegan]

I'm not sure how you would define "being more welcoming" but I hope it doesn't include supporting the common viewpoint that simply being better than average is sufficient.

“Being more welcoming” means recognizing the good that non-vegan allies do in reducing animal suffering and encouraging them along their journey rather than shaming and alienating them from our movement. If you read this link here, you’ll see that many reducitarians are aligned with the vegan movement and are working toward the same goal, albeit in incremental changes. https://reducetarian.org/supporters

Which empirical evidence shows to be just as effective as the “elimination method.” https://faunalytics.org/reduce-eliminat ... nsumption/#

Did you read the article in the OP's post? It suggests that strong arguments is what makes us (vegans) so hated.

That's not even remotely what the article suggests. Actually, the article supports my earlier comments.

The reputation of vegans probably isn’t helped by the fact that non-meat eaters really do think they’re better than everyone else; vegetarians tend to rate the virtuosity of other vegetarians more highly than that of non-vegetarians. But it’s also true that most of us agree with them – and this is a major source of animosity.

It's intriguing to me that we also reject members of groups who have made laudable choices on purpose. The reputation of vegans probably isn’t helped by the fact that non-meat eaters really do think they’re better than everyone else; vegetarians tend to rate the virtuosity of other vegetarians more highly than that of non-vegetarians. But it’s also true that most of us agree with them – and this is a major source of animosity.

In line with this, the more righteous the study participants expected the vegetarians to be, the harsher the words they chose to describe them.

Hence my comment that vegans should recognize the good that non-vegan allies do in achieving the same goal (albeit at a different pace). Instead of acting like pompous assholes who think we ourselves couldn’t do any better.

Here is another interesting snippet:

In fact, Monin says this fear of reproach is so potent, vegetarians are likely to be more threatened by vegans than non-vegetarians are. “They agree that there is something wrong about raising animals for food, and now they're faced with someone who's putting their money where their mouth is, more than they do.”

One of the main points that the author is making is that cognitive dissonance is a major psychological factor that can cause people to rationalize meat-consumption, not that reasoned arguments and evidence fail to convince people to stop supporting animal agriculture. Obviously psychology is a factor at play, but it is likely good arguments and evidence that will motivate the open minded to accept good principles and change their behavior.

I think your missing the point here. This discussion is not about what we (vegans) know to be true. It is about how to improve the vegan image and ultimately grow the movement.

Do you think, dogma, fear-mongering, and pseudoscience accomplish this goal? You know what does improve the vegan image and grow the movement? The Reducetarian Movement (which is inclusive of vegans). https://reducetarian.org

Dietary vegans very often become ethical vegans later. Hence, we will increase the number of ethical vegans by encouraging people to become dietary vegans.

To the contrary, “health” and “dietary vegans” are fare more likely to abandon veganism altogether than ethical vegans. https://veganoutreach.org/humane-resear ... ecidivism/ The only health argument one needs is "It is nutritional consensus that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthy suitable for all stages of life."

??? Why not instead try to decipher what is the most productive method and then encourage that to be used.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there isn't evidence any one form of activism that I've seen that is the "most productive" in spreading veganism. For me, street epistemology has been an effective method, but it by no means works for everyone. Of course, some tactics should probably not be used, like shaming tactics and using crude language and overly explicit graphic footage. That kind go thing tends to cause compassion fatigue.

[Jebus]

“Being more welcoming” means recognizing the good that non-vegan allies do in reducing animal suffering and encouraging them along their journey rather than shaming and alienating them from our movement.

"Regognizing", "shaming", and "alienating". This is all a bit vague and subjective. When I communicate with vegetarians, I try to be critical as nicely as I can. It is important that they realize that they are causing a great deal of harm. If it's a stepping stone to veganism, then I am all for it, but where I live a great majority of vegetarians have no plans on changing the way they eat.

Did you read the article in the OP's post? It suggests that strong arguments is what makes us (vegans) so hated.

That's not even remotely what the article suggests.

In the case of eating meat, Rothgerber suggests we have a number of strategies – around 15 – which allow us to avoid facing up to the meat paradox. These include pretending that meat has no link to animals, imagining that we eat less of it than we really do, wilful ignorance about how it’s produced – helped by the cartoons of happy farm animals that we’re exposed to from childhood – and only eating meat from animals which are “humanely” farmed.

Unfortunately, most of these are derailed by the presence of vegans.

Not even remotely what the article suggests??? I agree that the article also suggests a softer tone when communicating with non-vegans, but my comment was in reply to your comment about making strong arguments; which the article suggests could make anti-vegan hatred worse.

One of the main points that the author is making is that cognitive dissonance is a major psychological factor that can cause people to rationalize meat-consumption, not that reasoned arguments and evidence fail to convince people to stop supporting animal agriculture.

The article is not about the most effective way of converting non-vegans. It is about the way vegans are perceived by non-vegans. One can argue that the two are correlated, but the author never gets into that. The part I quoted above suggests that when anti-vegan hatred occurs when vegan arguments are made that create cognitive dissonance.

I think your missing the point here. This discussion is not about what we (vegans) know to be true. It is about how to improve the vegan image and ultimately grow the movement.

Do you think, dogma, fear-mongering, and pseudoscience accomplish this goal? You know what does improve the vegan image and grow the movement?

LOL, Nice deflection. I think I need to remind you of what you wrote:

I actually avoid doing this (focus on the nutritional benefits of veganism) because it feeds into the assumption that veganism is a "dietary choice" rather than an ethical decision to recognize and respect the interests of sentient lives.

Which goes against the very article we are discussing:

the least popular vegans of all are those who cite animal cruelty as their reason.

Dietary vegans very often become ethical vegans later. Hence, we will increase the number of ethical vegans by encouraging people to become dietary vegans.

To the contrary, “health” and “dietary vegans” are fare more likely to abandon veganism altogether than ethical vegans.

Yes, but that is not "to the contrary" of what I wrote. You are much more likely to have success in convincing someone to try a plant-based diet if you focus on the nutritional benefits. Obviously ethical vegan is the ultimate goal, but my point is that one is likely to have more people becoming ethical vegans if first focusing on the nutritional benefits, even if some of them jump off the wagon along the way.

??? Why not instead try to decipher what is the most productive method and then encourage that to be used.

there isn't evidence any one form of activism that I've seen that is the "most productive" in spreading veganism.

some tactics should probably not be used, like shaming tactics and using crude language and overly explicit graphic footage.

OK, so you agree that crude language is a strategy that should never be used. That's a start considering "there isn't evidence any one form of activism that I've seen that is the "most productive" in spreading veganism." If you think really hard I'm sure you could come up with a few more generally useful strategies despite the lack of evidence.

[Lay Vegan]

Regognizing", "shaming", and "alienating". This is all a bit vague and subjective.

You’re a smart cookie Jebus, think harder. “Recognizing” means being sensitive to the unique challenges people may face in going (and staying) vegan, while still applauding them for doing “some” good and *less* harm. Perhaps one lives in a food desert with a lack of access to healthful, affordable otherwise vegan or plant-based foods, or maybe you’re stuck in a prison or some other facility that simply refuses to serve the kind of food one prefers to eat. Perhaps one suffers from disabilities (or homelessness), is low-income and therefore cannot afford hire caretakers and chefs to cook and shop for them. Maybe they’re overly reliant on food banks, homeless shelters, assisted living, nursing homes, social programs etc. is are therefore limited to eating vegetarian (or freegan). Maybe one lives in a social environment that isn’t tolerant or accepting of your lifestyle, where eating out with friends and coworkers often subjects you to personal interrogation and comments when you simply want to eat lunch. Maybe you’re a broke college student living at a private university in a secluded area of the city (with little access to major supermarket chains). Or perhaps one may choose to hunt and eat an invasive species in an area where it is a threat to the ecosystem.

“Recognition” here means being aware of these unique challenges and acknowledging the good people do to reduce harm even when making small incremental changes, or simply choose to follow another heuristic. “Shaming” and “alienating” means making people feel like shit simply for not being vegan, and erroneously equating vegetarians with people who oppose veganism and animal ethics.

When I communicate with vegetarians, I try to be critical as nicely as I can. It is important that they realize that they are causing a great deal of harm. If it's a stepping stone to veganism, then I am all for it, but where I live a great majority of vegetarians have no plans on changing the way they eat.

Much like the point I made in the other thread, degree of necessity and degree of negative impact matter as well. Vegetarianism is precisely an excellent heuristic for many people due to environmental/social variables that make following a strictly vegan diet unrealistic and unattainable (please see above). For these people, the harms caused can be offset with other behaviors, like social interaction with non-vegetarians and activism/outreach, thereby inspiring others to eat less meat (or by donating a portion of their income effective charities).

Please read about effective altruism here. https://www.effectivealtruism.org/artic ... -altruism/

Not even remotely what the article suggests???

You’re welcome to provide direct quotes where the author suggests reasoned arguments and evidence “cause” non vegans to continue eating meat. Furthermore, I'll need evidence support that claim.

In the case of eating meat, Rothgerber suggests we have a number of strategies – around 15 – which allow us to avoid facing up to the meat paradox. These include pretending that meat has no link to animals, imagining that we eat less of it than we really do, wilful ignorance about how it’s produced – helped by the cartoons of happy farm animals that we’re exposed to from childhood – and only eating meat from animals which are “humanely” farmed.

“Willful ignorance” may help people avoid cognitive dissonance but ethically it isn’t really meaningful because it doesn’t change the effects of our actions in the demand chain. The best it can do is “vindicate” your character, but avoiding watching an Earthlings video because seeing the cruelty would give you intense emotional distress and make you uncomfortable eating animals doesn’t really count as “ignorance” and has no real affect on the ethics of your decisions. @Red has talked about selective ignorance in regard to climate change culpability elsewhere.

The way to inspire people to do good without causing dissonance is to put forth GOOD ARGUMENTS that inspire people to eat less meat.

The article is not about the most effective way of converting non-vegans. 

Jebus, you do realize that we are capable of having a broader discussion about this issue outside of this article, right? I don’t agree with everything written in that article. I have some of my OWN thoughts on how we can improve our image. One of the more pernicious stereyoptes about vegans is that we're tree-hugging hippies who hate science, medicine, and are pretty much irrational. The OP asked a specific question on what we each think we can do to improve the image of vegans, and so I gave my opinion. They’re not perfectly analogous to everything stated in that article, so you don’t like it. I don't care.

The part I quoted above suggests that when anti-vegan hatred occurs when vegan arguments are made that create cognitive dissonance.

That quote doesn’t suggest that good vegan arguments (in the philosophical sense) cause dissonance, but rather “linking” meat and cruelty (which can be done with an overtly graphic video footage) can cause dissonance. I’m not talking about “arguing” in the casual sense, but put putting port a set of premises that support a conclusion. Actually, there’s good reason to believe that arguments like Name the Trait may not really conflict much with personal identity when the interlocutor is already “aware” of the connection between meat and cruelty and agrees that our moral principles should be consistent and respect the interests of sentient lives on a fundamental level. So I'm not sure even those arguments typically cause dissonance, or if they do that they inspire non vegans to begin loathing vegans or rationalize their animal consumption.

Also, you do realize all good arguments for veganism and animal ethics don’t necessarily lead to veganism right? There are very strong ethical and environmental arguments that focus less on identity, and instead encourage others to eat pescatarian, vegetarian, or simply eat less meat. None of these arguments necessarily conflict with personal identity or are likely to cause dissonance.

I actually avoid doing this [focus on the nutritional benefits of veganism] because it feeds into the assumption that veganism is a "dietary choice" rather than an ethical decision to recognize and respect the interests of sentient lives.

Which goes against the very article we are discussing:

That’s OK, I am allowed have my own thoughts on this broader issue that contradict statements in this article.

Yes, but that is not "to the contrary" of what I wrote. You are much more likely to have success in convincing someone to try a plant-based diet if you focus on the nutritional benefits.

It is absolutely to the contrary if there is empirical evidence that “dietary” and “health” vegans lack the same moral conviction that ethical vegans have and are therefore more likely to relapse and abandon veganism altogether. ESPECIALLY considering vegan recidivism is already astronomically high. Veganism may indeed have some interesting health benefits that appeal to some people, but it just isn’t a strong enough motivator to keep people acting “pure” and remaining on the diet. More importantly, there are diets that aren’t entirely plant-based that are still very much in line with vegan ethics, even if they lack these alleged “health benefits.”

If you think really hard I'm sure you could come up with a few more generally useful strategies despite the lack of evidence.

Absolutely! I recommend getting into politics and lobbying. I actually made a video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL4hOYUBA0E
More animal rights activists need to be interested in working within governmental bodies to inspire change. Jacy Reese talked about this here on the forum. Street epistemology has been effective for me and some others. Another tactic could be creating a YouTube channel speaking on vegan and vegan-adjacent issues, while growing a following. Unnatural Vegan has done amazing work for 10 years working to change our image (most of her viewers are non vegan). Joining or launching a popular animal rights organization (or support group) might increase the opportunity to get better media coverage.

[Jebus]

Yes, but that is not "to the contrary" of what I wrote. You are much more likely to have success in convincing someone to try a plant-based diet if you focus on the nutritional benefits.

It is absolutely to the contrary if there is empirical evidence that “dietary” and “health” vegans lack the same moral conviction that ethical vegans have and are therefore more likely to relapse and abandon veganism altogether.

Example A: Bob tries to convert 100 carnists by focusing on the nutritional benefits of veganism. Half of them are so impressed that they decide to embark on a plant based diet. Out of these 50 only 20% remain vegan after 5 years resulting in the final sum of ten vegans.

Example B: Chuck tries to convert 100 carnists by focusing on the ethical benefits of veganism. Ten percent of them are so impressed by his message that they decide to become ethical vegans. Out of these ten, 80% are still vegan after 5 years, resulting in the final sum of eight vegans.

We can only guess what the real numbers would be. Either way, it was not a contradiction.

[brimstoneSalad]

@Jebus I think the most compelling argument against using the nutritional argument is this:
Unintended consequences. People will often not take the whole message, and may just focus on the strongest points -- like the health harm of beef. If people end up not consuming beef because of those arguments and replace it with chicken, that could increase animal suffering because it takes more chickens to produce the same amount of meat, and they're arguably treated worse than cows.

Don't know if that's true or not, but it's something worth considering. The ethical argument is more likely to reduce meat across the board.