Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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.
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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/
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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.
Zaria Gorvett wrote: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.
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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.
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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.
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
Lay Vegan 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:
That’s OK, I am allowed have my own thoughts on this broader issue that contradict statements in this article.
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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.”
Jebus wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:46 am
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.