Is making comparisons OK?

[garrethdsouza]

trigger warning.

Is it OK to make comparisons with other human issues when talking about animal suffering? (Like slavery, the Holocaust, rape)

She has said its not productive in any way, but on what basis?:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFj-_pXdkdE

Also is harm caused by such an approach?

[brimstoneSalad]

It's probably quite necessary to do so.

When people claim not to care about something, you need to compare it to something they do care about, and show them the similarities. This seems to be the most effective means of reaching people.

They need to understand that them saying they do not care about animal agriculture and so they will continue eating meat (for example), is similar to a rapist saying he doesn't care about rape so will continue raping.
If they would criticize the rapist for that reasoning, they should realize they're being hypocritical for using indifference as justification for participating in something immoral.

Harm to who? Harm is caused by not using this approach through inefficacy to a certain category of people who are simultaneously not very logical, but also emotionally indifferent to the suffering of animals. That is, quite a few people.

Bear in mind, we don't have to say it's equal to compare it -- and we should try to avoid any confusion on that front.

[brimstoneSalad]

She has said its not productive in any way, but on what basis?:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFj-_pXdkdE

I just watched it.

She's being an idiot, and doesn't understand what speciesism is -- but asserts definitively that she does.
This is the nature of idiocy. Ignorance + arrogance.
She needs to open her mind and listen to people when they explain that she's mistaken, and has misunderstood the comparisons being made.

Are some vegans misrepresenting the concept of speciesism? YES, absolutely.
So much so that otherwise reasonable people can be misled about it. But to be so assertive that she does understand, and yet throwing around this straw man argument and indicating extremely clearly that she does NOT understand it is asinine. And on the basis of that misunderstanding indicting people of being racist? That's just contemptible.

Of course there's human privilege. And neither that concept, nor speciesism, is racist. Making comparisons to racism is not racist; it's anti-racist. People comparing these things are against both of them, and it's the wrongness of both of these things that are being compared.

Nobody is saying they are exactly equal; that's not what a comparison is. It's comparing one, or a few, particular aspects.

What might be useful, to avoid confusing people like this, is to do a compare AND contrast when mentioning these things. Otherwise they'll put words in your mouth and say you're a racist because you didn't articular the obvious differences in these situations, therefore you think they're identical.

She's a good example of a person who apparently doesn't want to get it, she's very trigger happy about labeling people racist, sexist, etc. That kind of behavior is unacceptable. Her methods of reaching out to people by calling them racists and sexist are what's harmful, particularly when she's making these terrible straw man arguments.

[garrethdsouza]

Harm to the victims. Peta came under criticism for their holocaust comparison and idk whether ingrids statement means she reconsoders their stance on it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_ ... _Holocaust

There are other issues as well , some raised in the comments but thats more on vegan efficacy than on how the victims feel http://veganstrategist.org/2015/03/20/o ... ce-issues/

[brimstoneSalad]

Harm to the victims.

"Harm"? You mean it might hurt their feelings.

It might also hurt people's feeling to learn how horrible the conditions are that animals are kept and killed under, and that they are responsible for it.
It might Hurt Christians' feelings to tell them God doesn't exist, and that actually, homosexuality isn't wrong and gays will not burn in hell and there is no heaven.

Is our goal to avoid hurting people's feelings, or to educate people and get them to change their behavior to relieve others of physically torturous conditions?

There are other issues as well , some raised in the comments but thats more on vegan efficacy than on how the victims feel http://veganstrategist.org/2015/03/20/o ... ce-issues/

I'm interested in efficacy, of course. I agree with everything Tobias said in the article, although I didn't read all of the other comments people left.

I'm very against the all or nothing approach. I've also argued that the civil war was a terrible way to end slavery in the past. I think it should have been done through reform over a couple decades; but we'll never know exactly how that would have worked by comparison.

Which arguments do you think were compelling?

[garrethdsouza]

Some of the issues raised were important in regard to making comparisons:

If as activists, we think it is so important to make an analogy to other forms of social justice movements or oppressed groups of people it is important to acknowledge that said injustice is still a current issue. If we do not, we unwittingly help to suppress the voices of that movement (our silence insinuates ‘hey this was an issue of the past, but now we live in a world where we don’t have to worry about this anymore’) and unfortunately reinforces the system of oppression.

More importantly, doesn’t the pain and suffering that we inflict on more than a billion of non human animals annually a compelling enough argument to stand on its own? I believe by continuing to compare the struggle of AR to human animal social justice movements we perpetuate speciesism. Somehow their pain and oppression is not deserving of advocacy unless we compare it to OUR own human suffering....

Using arguments of human slavery without acknowledging the oppression many people of colour face every day not only hurts the civil rights/human rights movement but also hurts our (the AR) movement. Some people of colour are offended when it seems like people imply that racism (the foundation of slavery) isn’t an issue anymore. Just as talking about the ‘rape of dairy cows’ without being witness to the millions of women who have endure sexual violence may hurt women who have been trafficked, raped, or sexually assaulted. People inherently want their pain to be acknowledged. This is one of the things we advocate for as AR activists, too? That people acknowledge the sentience of animals and their inherent right to their own life. We can’t act like these oppressions are not an issue whether for non-human or human animals.

It doesn’t take very much to acknowledge the continual struggle (and progress) of other social justice movements if we chose to use them as a reference. It may actually help us win allies (a better strategy, perhaps?) too.

This is an issue I have struggled with. I have used the comparison of social justice movements (namely, slavery) to highlight the terrible situation many animals are currently in. However, I am starting to believe that the merits of animal rights are a worthy enough argument without possibly offending already disadvantaged groups, inadvertently supporting a system of oppression (including speciesism), and alienating people from the AR movement.

[garrethdsouza]

One thing she (CYA) did talk about was how people often use animal rights as an excuse to not be involved in other social justice movements... Because animals have it worst
That's the relative privation fallacy and can be anti-human rights because nothing else winds up being talked about other than animal suffering. And ironically the ones saying "f**k human rights" ( like yourovsky) are generally the ones who already have majority oftheie human rights already.

[brimstoneSalad]

One thing she (CYA) did talk about was how people often use animal rights as an excuse to not be involved in other social justice movements... Because animals have it worst
That's the relative privation fallacy and can be anti-human rights because nothing else winds up being talked about other than animal suffering.

That isn't the fallacy of relative privation. You've misunderstood something.

Your time, money, and energy IS limited. If you have to choose one or the other, optimizing your moral action, you SHOULD choose the one making the biggest difference in suffering per unit of resource.

The fallacy of relative privation is dismissing an argument because "there are more important things", without respect to what we're doing about it, or other real considerations. This is acknowledging it, and simply looking at ROI.

And ironically the ones saying "f**k human rights" ( like yourovsky) are generally the ones who already have majority oftheie human rights already.

I don't think there's anything ironic about that. But discrediting him because he is not personally disadvantaged is a fallacy.

As to that comment:

it is important to acknowledge that said injustice is still a current issue. If we do not, we unwittingly help to suppress the voices of that movement (our silence insinuates ‘hey this was an issue of the past, but now we live in a world where we don’t have to worry about this anymore’) and unfortunately reinforces the system of oppression.

No it isn't. Being concise is important; we can add pages of footnotes to everything because of assumptions people might make, but that's not necessarily productive to getting the most important message across.
No it doesn't; because this is based on the assumptions people are making; you are not adding more misinformation there, you just haven't gone out of your way to correct a preexisting assumption (you also have not taken advantage of that assumption in any way).
It does not insinuate that.
It reinforces nothing.

That's like saying, 'when you ask somebody what time is it, it's reinforcing the oppression of people without watches or the inability to keep time, because you didn't add a foot note to everything you said even vaguely related to that subject'.

More importantly, doesn’t the pain and suffering that we inflict on more than a billion of non human animals annually a compelling enough argument to stand on its own?

You would think it should, but people are speciesist and will often say they don't care, or refuse to be exposed to that information, so you have to meet them where they are.

I believe by continuing to compare the struggle of AR to human animal social justice movements we perpetuate speciesism.

No, we are not. It's not a speciesist argument, it's just not covering the topic of speciesism at all (a subject upon which harping is not effective), but instead addressing inconsistency and helping people realize the issue in terms they can understand.
It's absurd to think that trying to lecture people on speciesism is more effective; most people (unfortunately) don't give a shit.

Somehow their pain and oppression is not deserving of advocacy unless we compare it to OUR own human suffering....

Nobody has said or implied that in any way whatsoever.

Using arguments of human slavery without acknowledging the oppression many people of colour face every day not only hurts the civil rights/human rights movement but also hurts our (the AR) movement.

Evidence?
There's no reason to believe this would be the case.

Some people of colour are offended when it seems like people imply that racism (the foundation of slavery) isn’t an issue anymore.

There may be cases where people do that, such as in advocating animal liberation.

"All we have to do it liberate the animals, and then all of this prejudice against them and speciesism will be gone forever if they're just free just like it happened with African Americans!"

That's just a bad and unreasonable argument. Of course that will have untrue implications; the entire thing is founded on a false analogy, and historical revisionism.

Just as talking about the ‘rape of dairy cows’ without being witness to the millions of women who have endure sexual violence may hurt women who have been trafficked, raped, or sexually assaulted.

That's absurd.

People inherently want their pain to be acknowledged.

That's a rather far fetched claim, but even if they do, that doesn't mean it's good for them to dwell on it. The trick to becoming well adjusted after a trauma is moving past it. Expecting people to be shell shocked and freak out whenever anything vaguely associated with their traumas is mentioned is not a healthy expectation, and it will become an unhealthy habit when you encourage people to live your expectations in that regard.

See the Golem effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_effect
You are harming people by sheltering them and expecting so little of them.

This is one of the things we advocate for as AR activists, too? That people acknowledge the sentience of animals and their inherent right to their own life.

When it's the subject of the actual conversation at hand, or these people are directly contributing to animal suffering.
Animal rights is pushing it anyway, though; this is all veering in the direction of deontology, which is a bad assumption.

It doesn’t take very much to acknowledge the continual struggle (and progress) of other social justice movements if we chose to use them as a reference.

False, it distracts from the subject. Arguing about these topics is hard enough for most people without introducing their own red herrings to distract from their own arguments. And it's easy enough for the carnists to lose focus and wander off.
I would have a hard time working with a handicap like that, and I'm something of a pro at debate.

It may actually help us win allies (a better strategy, perhaps?) too.

Very unlikely, considering the costs. In terms of efficacy, it seems to these comparisons are more effective than not, and alienating a very small minority of people who are anal enough to have a serious problem with it is not at issue; given the sheer number of people who need to be educated, alienating a few is a fair price to pay for a more effective strategy for the many.

This is why assholes like Gary Yourofsky's methods tend to be more effective than not. When we start running out of people to spread the message to, this will start being a problem, but at this point the economics of activism are very different and favor strong messages that have legs over wishy-washy hard to understand messages that are very likely to bore people but won't risk being offensive to a small minority (a minority who likely won't listen to them anyway, since they may be more prone to use the actual fallacy of relative privation, claiming they have their own problems so are justified in doing whatever to animals -- just as probable as finding allies, for all we know).

[Mr. Purple]

I think making comparisons of factory farming to the holocaust may be justified, but in my experience it definitely turns people off from veganism. Unless they buy into animals being comparable to humans from the start, they tend to just write you off as an extremist and feel justified in not listening further.