Vegan infighting and movement unity; response to ModVegan

[miniboes]

This is a response to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_s_rLhKEVw&t=310s

I think Margaret's basic point in this video is right; nudging people towards veganism in a friendly manner should be our main priority. I write this with the risk in mind that we don't actually disagree on anything, but I think it's an interesting and important conversation to have. I do think my perspective is slightly different here.

If I understand correctly, Margaret claims that veganism needs to grow into a movement before we develop the minutia and exact implications of its doctrine. I think growth and the evolution of the doctrine can and should happen simultaneously. Strengthening our doctrine through criticising each other actually aids growth, and I think Margaret may overestimate the unity of other movements. I'd like to illustrate those points with two examples:

Firstly, when Andrew Sullivan wrote that gay people should have the right to marry in 1989 he was heavily criticised by his peers:

Many gay rights organisations attacked him for the stance at the time. Many on "the gay left" believed that he was promoting "assimilation" into "straight culture", when the aim of most at that time was to alter codes of sexuality and society as a whole, rather than fitting gays into it.[23] However, his arguments eventually became widely accepted and formed the basis of the modern movement to allow same-sex marriage.[43] In the wake of the United States Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage in 2013 (Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor), New York Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat suggested that Sullivan might be the most influential political writer of his generation, writing, "No intellectual that I can think of, writing on a fraught and controversial topic, has seen their once-crankish, outlandish-seeming idea become the conventional wisdom so quickly, and be instantiated so rapidly in law and custom."

This change in the gay rights movement forms the basis for its success today.

Secondly, black civil rights movements have always had two faces: one of equality with whites and one of dominance over them. Mandela had two equally great achievements: achieving equality and preventing black suppression of whites. Martin Luther King advocated for peaceful protest when a mass was about to assault police officers. We still see these two faces today; the black lives matter movement contains both.

if we see these movements through the rose coloured glasses of their success we risk forgetting what they owe their success to: figures such as Sullivan, Mandela and MLK always remaining critical of their own side.

When FullyRawKristina says you need no supplements and all spices are excitotoxins, this is harmful to people that listen to her and the vegan movement alike. Same goes for Yourofsky claiming that those who wear fur should be raped. These people are the dark side of our movement and we should criticise them (in a friendly and constructive manner) to strengthen veganism. As a result I see the vegan civil war as I see growing pains; unpleasant but unavoidable. We should, of course, try to keep our war of ideas civil and only fight battles that actually matter.

[brimstoneSalad]

Great post miniboes.

(video)

There are a lot of dangerous and even destructive ideas floating around in the vegan movement, and variously being attached to it, and if we don't "fight back" against them, or at least make it abundantly visible that we do not condone them and that we disagree with them, veganism could be irreparably damaged and become something that none of us want to advocate anymore.

This is the very problem that religion is facing in the modern era. Christians have been hesitant to speak out against homophobia and other hate messages, sitting in the pews with quiet disagreement, and as such it has pushed people away (which, obviously as a non-christian I don't care much about, but it's an important lesson to take home); the majority may not agree with it, but silence can speak very loudly.

Of course, we don't want drama -- we want productive discussion, and we want to change hearts and minds -- but sometimes the other side isn't as open, or they run out of arguments so they just attack.
When we get to the extremists who throw pragmatism to the wind, they aren't very interested in having philosophical discussions on these issues, from their perspectives they're so certain that they're right and it's so obviously true that anybody who disagrees could only possibly be a shill. We don't see much better from those who are so arrogant about their positions they just insult the other side as "beneath contempt" without going on to provide an argument.
The real destructive mindset is the refusal to even engage honestly and understand before leveling accusations like that or brushing something off, because that makes a real conversation impossible from both sides (why would you try to talk to somebody you're convinced is paid off and is inherently dishonest and insincere?).
Even when I think something is impossibly stupid, I still explain why it's wrong (see this insane thread: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1829 ), and that engagement and use of argument, I think, is the fundamental difference we need to keep in mind between drama and discussion (no matter how heated).

I've seen many hostile comments on Unnatural Vegan's videos, and I'm guessing Modvegan is starting to see them too. There's a trend of trollish hostility that's hard to overcome, particularly on the internet, even when you disagree with people in the most civil way.

With UV, I've seen it with the hardcore antinatalists who say nasty things about her family/pregnancy, the anti-vaxxers, the whole foods crowd who aggressively attack her for her processed food choices, the anti-GMO crowd, and the alt-med crowd who claim she killed somebody by criticizing a fundraiser for alt-med treatment.
And I haven't even been watching her videos very long/don't read many comments on youtube. I'd bet there's even more.

Maybe the science-based side could stop some of the more public attacks by not criticizing the other side anymore, but is that really what we want?

Do we want to let these bad ideas run rampant and create that low level interpersonal hostility that has been making parents feel unwelcome in veganism, that has been making people feel guilty for vaccinating their children, or worse, frightening them into not doing it and resulting sick, permanently disabled and even dead children?
Do we want to let quacks rule the movement that make people think that you can't eat vegan unless you're raw, or starch solution (which is overwhelmingly likely to result in recidivism from malnutrition and general non-viability)? That even, as Greger has done, convince people to forgo chemotherapy because it's only "2% effective" thus killing people? (It's a lie, see the 2% gambit: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy/ )

If veganism is going to be corrupted by pseudoscience and hostility against people who aren't vegan to the point it's ineffective and even harming people (inside and outside), then we need to coin a new term and start a new movement. I'm not ready to give up yet, though, the current movement has a lot of cultural capital, I think the silent majority is more sensible than the vocal extremists, and I think the public image of veganism can be wrest from the clutches of pseudoscience and militantism -- I don't think it can happen without a little of what some might call drama, though.

[ModVegan]

This is a response to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_s_rLhKEVw&t=310s

I think Margaret's basic point in this video is right; nudging people towards veganism in a friendly manner should be our main priority. I write this with the risk in mind that we don't actually disagree on anything, but I think it's an interesting and important conversation to have. I do think my perspective is slightly different here.

If I understand correctly, Margaret claims that veganism needs to grow into a movement before we develop the minutia and exact implications of its doctrine. I think growth and the evolution of the doctrine can and should happen simultaneously. Strengthening our doctrine through criticising each other actually aids growth, and I think Margaret may overestimate the unity of other movements. I'd like to illustrate those points with two examples:

...

When FullyRawKristina says you need no supplements and all spices are excitotoxins, this is harmful to people that listen to her and the vegan movement alike. Same goes for Yourofsky claiming that those who wear fur should be raped. These people are the dark side of our movement and we should criticise them (in a friendly and constructive manner) to strengthen veganism. As a result I see the vegan civil war as I see growing pains; unpleasant but unavoidable. We should, of course, try to keep our war of ideas civil and only fight battles that actually matter.

I'm so sorry I didn't see this comment earlier! I was crazy busy all week doing research for today's video.

This video was actually created in response to the fight between VegSource (Jeff Nelson) and That Vegan Couple (and a number of other YouTubers).

Basically, a few vegan trolls have been making death threats and other horrible comments about Jeff Nelson (if you've heard of Order 66, you probably understand, if you haven't, consider yourself lucky).

Jeff responded by randomly accusing a whole slew of ethical vegans and largely ignoring how the flames had been flamed by some of his friends (like the Vegan Cheetah).

I really don't like to get into the "naming names" thing, because I think it detracts from the overall message.

However, I totally agree with you that we need to call out pseudoscience (I did it myself with a video after RawAlignment told her followers they could cure urinary tract infections with water fasts.

And I'm not at all against debating the finer points of veganism. But initiating troll attacks in response to other people's views is not okay, no matter what. Vegans are telling other vegans that [various violent acts] should be committed against them because they advocate supplements (or don't). It's insane.

If people followed the principle of non-violence (in word or deed), we wouldn't need to worry about any of this, and that's probably the "moral baseline" that really needs to be advocated more than anything else.
I really hope 2017 will be a better year in terms of this stuff.

[ModVegan]

Great post miniboes.

(video)

There are a lot of dangerous and even destructive ideas floating around in the vegan movement, and variously being attached to it, and if we don't "fight back" against them, or at least make it abundantly visible that we do not condone them and that we disagree with them, veganism could be irreparably damaged and become something that none of us want to advocate anymore.

...
Of course, we don't want drama -- we want productive discussion, and we want to change hearts and minds -- but sometimes the other side isn't as open, or they run out of arguments so they just attack.

...
I've seen many hostile comments on Unnatural Vegan's videos, and I'm guessing Modvegan is starting to see them too. There's a trend of trollish hostility that's hard to overcome, particularly on the internet, even when you disagree with people in the most civil way.

With UV, I've seen it with the hardcore antinatalists who say nasty things about her family/pregnancy, the anti-vaxxers, the whole foods crowd who aggressively attack her for her processed food choices, the anti-GMO crowd, and the alt-med crowd who claim she killed somebody by criticizing a fundraiser for alt-med treatment.
And I haven't even been watching her videos very long/don't read many comments on youtube. I'd bet there's even more.

Maybe the science-based side could stop some of the more public attacks by not criticizing the other side anymore, but is that really what we want?

...
If veganism is going to be corrupted by pseudoscience and hostility against people who aren't vegan to the point it's ineffective and even harming people (inside and outside), then we need to coin a new term and start a new movement. I'm not ready to give up yet, though, the current movement has a lot of cultural capital, I think the silent majority is more sensible than the vocal extremists, and I think the public image of veganism can be wrest from the clutches of pseudoscience and militantism -- I don't think it can happen without a little of what some might call drama, though.

The only drama/infighting that concerns me is the stuff that involves violence, or threats of violence. Unfortunately, it's sadly common.

I fully intend to keep talking about controversial topics, etc. And I hope everyone does! But I'd love to see people being more rational and not jumping to the first epithet that comes to mind when they disagree with someone. For example, I was called a "colonialist, white supremacist" on Amino for my stance on organic food (that was interesting).

I do think it's counterproductive to make mountains out of genuine molehills. For example, I have had it with drama-mongerers. I hope people tire of them eventually.

Sorry for not responding to this earlier, I haven't had time to log on until today.

[brimstoneSalad]

Basically, a few vegan trolls have been making death threats and other horrible comments about Jeff Nelson (if you've heard of Order 66, you probably understand, if you haven't, consider yourself lucky).
[...]
I really don't like to get into the "naming names" thing, because I think it detracts from the overall message.

To the contrary, I think it ended up a bit confusing because you didn't name names or give specific examples. I know I didn't know what you were talking about, it came off pretty vague as to what the drama was, and what was wrong or wasn't since I'm not that familiar with it.

Definitely death threats or threats of violence are unacceptable.
I also think the slander, with people like Cheetah making things up without evidence, is unacceptable.

These things are literally illegal, so there's a clear line there.

Other things might be harmful, but it's harder to qualify them as drama without the appearance of subjectivity.
Some people may want us to stop criticizing their pseudoscience diet advice under the accusation of anti-vegan drama, and yet it's very important to do.

The only drama/infighting that concerns me is the stuff that involves violence, or threats of violence. Unfortunately, it's sadly common.

What about other illegal behavior, like making public a confidential correspondence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf84pTtVOMc
He never apologized for it, either. He apologized for "hurting her feelings", which I'm sure only added insult to injury. UV doesn't strike me as the kind of person to have her "feelings" hurt. Is that just what he thinks about women ? He made the same non-apology to Freelee too.
He needed to apologize for the deeply unethical and even illegal action of publishing and discussing publicly their private correspondence.

And then he went on some campaign of slandering her and calling her stupid and worse than durianrider, etc. I presume because she ignored him after that video.
It wasn't a threat of physical violence, but still completely unacceptable. There has been a pattern there of harassment and bullying which other youtubers have noticed too.

That's the only example I can think of, because I don't watch many videos in the "VYC", I'm sure there are other cases of that unprofessional and immoral behavior though.
It's not just about violence. I think there's a certain professional and ethical standard that vegans need to hold themselves and the community to.

For example, I was called a "colonialist, white supremacist" on Amino for my stance on organic food (that was interesting).

That's crazy.
I would chalk that up to rhetoric and ignorance, they probably thought they were making a good point, unless the person is persistently following you and attacking you.
But if it became a a case of persistent and ongoing slander (like ABLC against UV) or a group of people attacking (like in the case of the accusations of murder against UV for criticizing a pseudoscience therapy), that's when it would become the kind of bullying and drama that I think we should stand against and say "enough" to.

I do think it's counterproductive to make mountains out of genuine molehills.

The problem is, what is or isn't a molehill tends to be subjective. Like UV's video on Kristina's leather shoes. ABLC stirred up drama against UV for that, and I would call that harassment and drama-mongering (although if it weren't for the long history of slander and harassment there, I might just see it as a very venomously stated one off opinion, like the person calling you a colonialist white supremacist).
Where do we draw the line? It's difficult to say with these issues that are connected to what might at least potentially be real discussions if they were more civil. Civility would go a long way to make this line more clear, for sure.

[ModVegan]

True! It' hard to know where to draw the line. Nothing said against me has bothered me so far. UV does get a lot of genuinely misanthropic garbage thrown her way. I don't think it's right to use statements taken from private correspondence in a public format, but unfortunately, that seems to be de riguer on YouTube.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think it's right to use statements taken from private correspondence in a public format, but unfortunately, that seems to be de riguer on YouTube.

I would be inclined to agree, if not for this fact:

https://youtu.be/vf84pTtVOMc?t=192

ABLC denied UV permission to share the emails, thus acknowledging his understanding that the correspondence itself was confidential. That's what would actually give her legal cause to sue him if she were so inclined.
If he did not see them as confidential, he would have told her she can share whatever she wants because he doesn't regard the messages as private.

He clearly understood it to be a private correspondence, and for all he talks about honor and integrity, it seems none of that applies when he feels slighted.

I've seem him attempt to develop relationships with several youtubers, only to turn on them with great ire at any perceived slight. There's a comment thread on your video demonstrating just that with Tofu Tommy. Cheetah probably deserved it, but what about VegAnn, and the many others?
Don't we have to, at some point, stand together in support of people who are seeing this kind of emotional abuse and slander? It may not be threats of violence, but it's still very real and very harmful. Where do we personally draw the line as to what to speak out on?

[ModVegan]

ABLC denied UV permission to share the emails, thus acknowledging his understanding that the correspondence itself was confidential. That's what would actually give her legal cause to sue him if she were so inclined.
If he did not see them as confidential, he would have told her she can share whatever she wants because he doesn't regard the messages as private.

He clearly understood it to be a private correspondence, and for all he talks about honor and integrity, it seems none of that applies when he feels slighted.

I've seem him attempt to develop relationships with several youtubers, only to turn on them with great ire at any perceived slight. There's a comment thread on your video demonstrating just that with Tofu Tommy. Cheetah probably deserved it, but what about VegAnn, and the many others?
Don't we have to, at some point, stand together in support of people who are seeing this kind of emotional abuse and slander? It may not be threats of violence, but it's still very real and very harmful. Where do we personally draw the line as to what to speak out on?

I'll definitely ask him about it the next time I talk to him. It really surprises me that he would have asked her to keep the correspondence confidential and then shared it himself. It doesn't seem in keeping with what I know of him.

As far as VegAnn, they had a very strong disagreement on Patreon regarding the pet issue. They simply disagreed with each other, and she was quite upset about it. I have nothing whatsoever against VegAnn, but after the pet issue she did publicly support a few people who had made some rather slanderous accusations against Eisel. I don't see that particular argument as having a right/wrong side. They were both very upset for personal reasons, and it was sad to see things unwind so rapidly.

Tofu Tommy is one of the most kind and loyal people I've ever known. We've talked privately about the issue, and I know that like me, Tommy is most interested in working with other people and I believe the conflict was resolved peacefully (thanks, no question - in a large part- to Tommy's humility and grace).

[brimstoneSalad]

It really surprises me that he would have asked her to keep the correspondence confidential and then shared it himself. It doesn't seem in keeping with what I know of him.

She asked him permission to share it, and he denied permission.
EDIT: Apparently he shared it himself, THEN denied UV permission to share it. That's even weirder.

Bizarrely, he also made this about Buddhism somehow, accusing her of searching some Buddhist forums like Durianrider did?
Never happened.

The only other thing she referenced was a thread from a vegan facebook group (EDIT: Skeptical Vegan discussion group) she is part of, where he insulted some other users and the group for challenging him on meditation.
I'm certain she didn't go looking for anything.

It had nothing to do with his credibility on Buddhism (I'm sure he's one of the foremost experts in the world), but with his behavior: the failure to respect the people he was arguing with enough to present an actual argument, just like he disrespected UV by not responding to her arguments on pets.
You can disrespect a position or argument, but if you respect the person who holds that position then you should take your time to try to educate that person rather than insulting the argument and saying it's beneath contempt; how does that help anybody or change minds?

Again, I'd reference my arguments in the thread on the Flat Earth issue. I have no respect for the flat Earth position, but enough respect for the intelligence of the person who was advocating it to inform him (as well as others who might have been reading). As such, I educated him and he changed his mind. It took something like ten pages, and I wasn't always nice, but I presented arguments.

ABLC, in the facebook group, failed to give due respect to the intelligent (and perhaps misinformed) human beings he was arguing with. He just accused them of being ignorant and talked about how he knew the languages and the history and was right -- he may have been right, but you can't just say that. He could have easily just respected the group and the members in it and dropped a huge knowledge bomb on the thread, that would have been awesome, and he might have changed some minds.... but he didn't do that. He insulted them and left instead.

His behavior in the facebook group was basically the same as how he was behaving to UV. Leaving an insult, and not bothering to address the issue with an argument. This is disrespectful not to the arguments, but to the other human beings.

My understanding from watching the videos and reading the relevant information is that UV was just establishing in her video that this kind of behavior (failure to properly address criticism with argument) was a habit of ABLC, and for that reason (having nothing to do with his position on pets) she didn't feel comfortable recommending him anymore.

Afterwards, UV completely ignored him. That's something I don't agree with, but that seems to be her attitude. Kind of: "you're dead to me". That drove him nuts, and he went on a slanderous attack spree against her, building up all kinds of imaginary slights that she made against him (like challenging his credibility on Buddhism, which was never what the issue was).

ABLC probably thinks he apologized when he said sorry for hurting her feelings. From what I know of her, I'd bet that only pissed her off more. Like I said: not a girl to her her feelings hurt.

I bet if he actually apologized for what he did, she'd forgive him:
1. Shared those messages without permission [then] denying her permission to do so
2. Disrespected her personally by not trying to explain to her why she was wrong on pets (again, a difference between disrespecting an argument and a person)

But he'll never do that, in part because of ego (he can't recognize that he made a legitimate mistake that wasn't just somebody else's feelings being hurt), and in part because he's clueless about the real issue. And she'll ignore him until he does, and won't make an effort to explain to him why she's not talking to him anymore -- of course that doesn't help matters.

As far as VegAnn, they had a very strong disagreement on Patreon regarding the pet issue. They simply disagreed with each other, and she was quite upset about it.

Did you see the way he talked about it, or see her video on it?
The way he behaved toward her was unacceptable. I can't blame her for any reaction to that she may have had.

I have nothing whatsoever against VegAnn, but after the pet issue she did publicly support a few people who had made some rather slanderous accusations against Eisel.

I think she thought 'If he treated me like this over a disagreement, maybe these people were in the right too'.
The trouble is, when somebody is that aggressive and mean to you, you tend to empathize with other people that person has been mean to (justified or not).

It's not acceptable for people to question what ABLC spent the money on when he said he spent it on a lawyer, no. But maybe they did that as a response to his behavior? It's hard to take him seriously as a victim when he behaves like that to innocent people like Ann, UV, and Tommy.

I don't see that particular argument as having a right/wrong side. They were both very upset for personal reasons, and it was sad to see things unwind so rapidly.

ABLC was wrong initially to treat Ann in that way, similar to UV and the people in the facebook group. If he thinks he's right, he needs to spend less time calling people stupid and more time making an argument. That was all on him.

Ann was wrong to endorse the people who were accusing ABLC of fraud (if she did that, it looked like she was just being friendly to them, but I haven't watched all of her videos). It's very understandable why she did (if she did), because they were both victims of his ire. Two wrongs don't make a right, though.

Tofu Tommy is one of the most kind and loyal people I've ever known. We've talked privately about the issue, and I know that like me, Tommy is most interested in working with other people and I believe the conflict was resolved peacefully (thanks, no question - in a large part- to Tommy's humility and grace).

This is a repeating pattern with ABLC, though. Unless he can learn from his past mistakes and start respecting people regardless of whether he respects certain arguments, and starts being more patient and presenting his own arguments to counter even those arguments he considers beneath contempt because he wants to help lead the people in the right direction, he'll never be effective at maintaining these relationships. It takes a rare person like Tommy to make that happen. If he worked that out after how cruel ABLC was to him, that's amazing.

[EquALLity]

Again, I'd reference my arguments in the thread on the Flat Earth issue. I have no respect for the flat Earth position, but enough respect for the intelligence of the person who was advocating it to inform him (as well as others who might have been reading). As such, I educated him and he changed his mind. It took something like ten pages, and I wasn't always nice, but I presented arguments.

Well, er... With all due respect for your intelligence and stuff, ( ) I don't know if that in particular is the best example.

I mean, you presented arguments, but you weren't always very respectful of his intelligence:

It's a photograph you moron. You have no idea what angle or frame the camera is using. It's easy to move the horizon around by slightly changing the camera position and angle.

You're so stupid this is painful to me.

Here's how you test it, dipshit:

1. Level the camera with a proper level device (like with a bubble) -- you will need a tripod too, obviously (it might go without saying if you weren't a complete moron). You'd also want to use consistent lens and focus etc. and compass/GPS to make sure you're at the same ground position and facing the same way.
2. Find a single location with a simple horizon (ideally ocean to it's level and unobscured) where you can elevate the camera to compare two different altitudes at the same position (like form the windows of a very tall building)
3. Take level pictures from the bottom.
4. Take level pictures from the top.
5. Compare, and determine margin of error based on your level and camera resolution to find statistical significance.

Your grasp of science and the notion of falsifiability is so poor, that if you had any shred of honesty at all you'd stop trying to use those words until you know what they mean.

That's... not really the only example.

I mean, obviously it's a really frustrating situation and argument, but if you're going to say that was respectful of his intelligence... I'm not saying you were necessarily required to be respectful of his intelligence, but you weren't.