I struggle with that balance too, although what seems to work is a very bold claim followed by something very reasonable and diplomatic.
The art of click-bait, really. Or you're kind of playing your own good-cop bad-cop.
I think your dramatic claim can be in the title or the first couple sentences, as long as you temper that after. Humor can help a lot, but it's tricky with such a sensitive subject.
The former is a good bet if you want to make some very provocative claims but not risk putting off potential vegans. Criticizing fundamentalists is something the mainstream really wants to hear, and you can be pretty mean without risking alienation.
The latter is more tricky. People can be very emotionally attached to their narratives.
That's good to hear.
Maybe, but I feel like you weren't really dramatic enough to achieve that.JacyReese wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 1:17 pmIn the talk, the scale seemed to tip towards inclusion, for two reasons: (1) Many vegan/animal influencers (e.g. Best Video You Will Ever See) focus heavily on raising awareness and converting people to veg*nism. My impression is they were much more likely to share it if it included the harms discussion.
Here the middle ground can be worse for publicity. I could be wrong, but I think we see activists clustering around the extremes for a reason.
I think Melanie Joy did it very well in her talk on carnism, because it was very personal (in the sense of her own story, not to the audience), she warned the audience at points, etc.
That's probably the best go-to reference for depicting the realities here in a palatable way that isn't offensive to meat eaters. It's best for it to be about your own experiences.
Of course, for us long term vegans it's very hard to put ourselves in the shoes of a non-vegan and know what will offend them or not.
That might be. Kind of a wink and nod to the effective altruists that will go over the heads of the layman. Interesting thought.JacyReese wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 1:17 pm<<The mention of wild animal suffering near the end is a little dangerous...>>
I'm fairly confident that very few people not already familiar with WAS perceived that as talking about controversial intervention in the wild. It was probably read by most (if they read it as anything) as standard environmentalism, perhaps with a focus on the more wildlife-centric environmentalism, like preserving endangered species.
My thoughts on wild animal suffering are more that it's only relevant to complex discussions of philosophy and consistency in terms of what the abstract notion of good means. Because farmed animals so outnumber wild animals now (or at least outweigh them in terms of biomass), I don't think it's worth the risk to broach the subject unless it's a point of attack on veganism.
Too many people have an appeal to nature fallacy chiseled into their ethical foundations, and it's a very hard one to undo.
Would you be willing to outline that discussion (WAS in your book) on the forum? I'm interested to hear what you're covering.
I've found a focus on disease (rather than predation) is less risky. People have a bizarre sympathy for the "circle if life" but fewer people will even pretend to appreciate the "beauty" of diseases like rabies or Tasmanian devil facial tumors. Things like fleas, mites, and parasitic worms are probably somewhere in the middle.
If it doesn't cost anything, that's great. We have to be sure we don't alienate people in the process, though, otherwise we're looking at a similar problem that faces multi-issue activism.JacyReese wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 1:17 pm(2) To ensure we keep wild animals included in animal rights discussions, to better enable us to tackle WAS down the road and make small investments in it now (e.g. research, movement-building). This is also why I'm very glad WAS has been discussed at the International Animal Rights Conference, and hopefully will be discussed soon at the Animal Rights National Conference.
Faunalytics has a good article on the issue you've probably already seen:
https://faunalytics.org/intersectional- ... ess-money/
I think the vast majority of active forum members would agree on that point.
Definitely so for veganism (instead of reducetarianism), since eating more limited meat doesn't have dramatic negative health effects, but even superbugs in moderation are a serious problem.
I wonder about eliminating antibiotic use; would it make welfare standards worse, or would it just make dense farming operations unsustainable?
And if it make standards worse, would enough of the public be outraged against it to finally ban those operations?
What do you mean?
Thank you! Have you seen the Wiki? It's still in its infancy, but it's coming along slowly.JacyReese wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 1:17 pmThanks again for the kind words and thoughtful criticism, everyone! I'll try to check this website again to see if there are any further responses. This website reminds me a bit of Felicifia, an old utilitarianism website where a lot of people in the effective altruism movement got there start, before we branded our approach as EA.