Revision as of 19:43, 26 May 2021

Gary Yourofsky was (and in many ways still is) an immensely influential figure in the Vegan Community, and is credited with converting hundreds of thousands of people to Veganism. He initially started his activist career by engaging in acts of civil disobedience, however, he eventually abandoned this method of activism in favor of an education-based approach. He gave tens of thousands of students lectures across the United States, with some of them being recorded and becoming viral. His Georgia Tech speech is said to have converted 8% of Israel's population to veganism (from 5% to 13%), and this number doesn't even take into account all the others he's convinced all over the world (as his speeches have been translated into dozens of languages).

After his lectures became accessible to everyone, he stopped traveling the country to do lectures and did a quick stint on YouTube beginning in 2014 that helped people along with their Vegan journeys and countering typical anti-vegan arguments.

In 2017 he decided to retire from activism, citing his exhaustion with trying to get people to go vegan, combined with misanthropic views that ultimately burned him out. Despite this, his videos and essays are still available online, so despite his retirement, he is still influencing people to this day.

In 2020 after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, he returned to YouTube to do a quick series of videos that were basically a collection of (unfunny) rants about why he hates everyone and why humans are the scum of the Earth and blah blah blah, typical r/im14andthisisdeep stuff. Somehow he managed to come back even more resentful and pissed off than he was before. He also did a video in response to the violence that happened on the Capitol Building but that video was taken down (likely due to him advocating violence against President Donald Trump). We'll dive into this all shortly.

While Yourofsky has done more for veganism than almost anyone else and has influenced many others to go into vegan activism, he is not without his share of faults... and there are many, many to list. While he has done so much for veganism, none of us here really consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information, especially when it comes to science and philosophy (frankly, he's kind of an idiot).

We can start with the good, but we really need to address the bad.

The Good

Effective Means of Activism

While acts of civil disobedience show a strong dedication to the movement, it is rarely effective activism, and can potentially be counterproductive. Protesting in the street, or causing some (harmless) disruption does very little in way of good.

When it comes to animal rights, we have to get at the root of the matter, which is the consumers. Corporations are continually breeding, torturing, raping, and killing billions of animals every year only because people keep demanding the products. Once you stop the demand, that's when the corporations will stop breeding animals into a miserable existence.

The way you do this is via education; Teaching people why what they're doing is wrong is what gets people to stop doing it. As said, Gary used to engage in acts of civil disobedience for animal causes, but he eventually had a realization, seeing that in order to stop animal cruelty, we have to get people to stop demanding it. That's why he prepared several speeches and traveled the country giving them to tens of thousands of students, getting a message out there, and converting thousands in the process.

However, while the speech style is great and probably about as effective as you can get, Gary's a little different in terms of his personality; He doesn't have the compromising, laid-back attitude that many Vegan activists have (not that we're condemning them for having so), instead taking on an energetic and hardline view on it. While the message may be less receptive in terms of percentage, this type of provocative and controversial behavior gets much more attention. What we mean by this, let's say that you take a more calm and compromising approach, with a 90% success rate, and your message is heard by 10,000 people. Not bad right? That's 9,000 people. However, if you take a more controversial approach, you have a 10% success rate, yet your message reaches one million people; That's 100,000 people. Sure, the success rate is lower, but by reaching more people overall, you have in the end converted more people. That's one of the reasons why Gary was such an effective activist overall.

Promoting the purchase Vegan alternatives sold by non-vegan companies

A mistake many vegans make is refusing to buy vegan products from companies that sell non-vegan ones (for instance, buying the Vegan Whopper from Burger King) mainly due to not understanding economics.

Gary makes a point of encouraging people to buy the vegan items sold by these companies, as he understands that when we buy more of these alternatives, companies will dump more money into the vegan stuff away from the non-vegan stuff. Gary may be wrong on a lot of things, but he definitely is spot on with the economics here.

The Maybe Bad

Holocaust Analogy

This is more of a 'knowing your audience' thing. While no ethical vegan disputes that the conditions on factory farms are pretty much like concentration camps, your audience might not be very receptive to the idea and consider you (and by extension vegans as a whole) as extremely radical.

Gary also takes it to the level of animal agriculture being worse than the Holocaust in terms of suffering; Regardless of truth, this is a statement that should not be used lightly and without consideration (Gary however has no problem doing this).

Gary used this analogy when he was giving lectures to students, but since the Georgia Tech speech was recorded and put on the internet, the Holocaust analogy resonated with viewers in Israel, which is widely considered to be one of the reasons Gary's speech was so impactful there. So whether or not he should have used the analogy is a fairly hard call to make.

Opposition to animal farm Welfare Laws

There are good reasons to oppose these laws from an ethical perspective as the lesser of the evils. For one, more 'humane' treatment of animals is always worse for the environment and far less sustainable, and it also runs the risk of people who would have been inclined to go vegan for ethical reasons would continue eating meat if they know the animals were treated better than on a factory farm.

On the other hand, opposing these laws can make vegans seem to uncompromising and radical to people, and could potentially alienate people when they think Vegans go too far on it.

It's a pretty complicated topic, but while there is a debate to have on it, the arguments against these laws are probably not ones Gary espouses.

The Bad

Anti-B12 Supplementation

I have no clue why Gary is against B12 supplementation; I'm guessing it has something to do with the desire for all the nutrients you need all come from "natural sources" or some hippie BS like that, but regardless it's an asinine position to hold, and an extremely dangerous and irresponsible idea to promote. The consensus on the matter is clear; Vegans MUST supplement with B12 in order to get an adequate amount. This isn't even up for debate at this point.

Gary insists that you only need 3 micrograms of B12 a day, and it is true that this is the RDA, it's an extremely low balling estimate. If you're only getting 3 micrograms (like from Silk soymilk) of B12 a day you are almost definitely deficient.

Gary also says just eat some dirty vegetables for B12, and this might be a decent source, but not everyone enjoys eating dirty vegetables. People have a hard enough time eating CLEAN vegetables FFS.

He also insists that your body makes all the B12 it needs (he can't really seem to make up his mind on whether or not you need to incorporate sources into your diet), but unless you're consuming your own excrement you ain't benefitting from that B12. No, enough with the nonsense Gary.

You wanna know what sources Gary cites to defend his position against B12 supplementation? He cited John McDougall, a quack he promotes the starch solution diet which is notoriously nutitionally inadequate, he cited a journalist (which can almost never be relied on for science), and most hilariously, he cited... NaturalNews. For those unaware, NaturalNews is a far-right and somehow New-Age anti-vax anti-science website that is probably the least reliable website on the internet (probably even less reliable than InfoWars).

To quote RationalWiki:

"On Wikipedia, NaturalNews is not merely a deprecated source, never to be used for anything ("There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories."), but actually on the spam blacklist. In short: If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong as this website is so bad, so unreliable, and so dead-faced wrong that even other quacks think it's a quack site, a feat of stupid that truly takes talent."

Wikipedia literally calls NaturalNews a fake-news site BTW.

He's against supplementation and the Vitamin industry for some reason (it's honestly mind-boggling), but whatever. Judging by his recent videos it seems as though the B12 deficiency is catching up with him given his fatigued demeanor (especially compared to his energetic self from years gone by), as a common symptom of B12 deficiency is constant fatigue. He's probably going to develop some sort of dementia very soon unless he begins supplementing (unless it's already too late to avoid irreversible damage).

Use of bad arguments

In his speeches Gary makes a lot of not very good arguments, and many of them are outlined in our Bad Arguments for veganism article. We're not going to retread that. Specifically, he makes the Humans are Herbivores, Thou Shalt Not Kill, Meat Causes Osteoporosis, and Animal Agriculture Causes World Hunger arguments. Heh, it's almost like we rewatched his speech just to get a list of bad arguments (because that's pretty much what we did LOL).

Gross-out arguments

Gary seems particularly fond of using gross-out arguments, and he seems to be sold on the idea that they're actually compelling, rational arguments against consumption of animal products, despite the fact that what's gross is what's subjective, and just because it's gross that doesn't mean it's morally or even healthfully wrong.

He doesn't just end using gross-out arguments at animal products though; In some of his newer videos he talks about how humans are disgusting because a lot of us have certain fetishes (such as scat or urine fetishes), and seems so convinced that this is actually a good reason to why to hate humans. Seriously. It's almost like he has the mind of a first-grader. I'm not even sure if he actually thinks it's a good reason to hate humans or if he's just being a judgmental asshole. I wonder if he realizes these things are just gross to HIM and not everyone else, and believing that what you think is gross is an objective standard and putting people down for it is a pretty narcissistic trait. Just sayin'.

None of this is even considering that using gross-out arguments and framing them as compelling is the same damn reason so many religious bigots are homophobic (since, at least with male homosexual sex, it's often done through the anus). Also I'm not sure if Gary's aware of this but animals have fetishes too, and animals do things many people would consider gross (gorillas often eat their own feces for instance). But I guess it's fine when animals do it since they aren't humans?

He also condemns people for going vegan for health reasons (as elaborated on), but going vegan for gross-out reasons is better? If someone were to go vegan because they think meat is gross, it's great that they went vegan, but they aren't doing it for the most rational reasons (including health).

It's important to add that in just about every speech he has given (even short ones) he makes a point of including these arguments, and considering that he only has so much time to speak, he has to condense other parts of the speech (such as the environmental arguments) just to make time for the gross-out arguments. Like in his Georgia Tech speech, the environmental argument was just a side note, and only discussed for a few minutes, whereas the gross-out part has its own dedicated section. Think; One of the strongest arguments for veganism, reduced to a mere footnote, just so you can tell people meat is gross. Ain't that dandy.

Not acknowledging recidivism

Everyone involved with Vegan activism knows that recidivism is one of the biggest obstacles we face in attempting to get veganism to be more mainstream. Whether we like it or not (and I'm assuming it's the latter), 84% of people who go vegetarian go back to eating meat within a year, and that number is 70% for vegans. These depressing stats show that it's not enough to just convince people to go vegan; Teaching people how to go vegan and explaining how to stick with it is just as important, and discussing recidivism in particular, the causes, and how to avoid it are subjects that must not be ignored. It might make us uncomfortable, but it probably isn't any less uncomfortable when we first realized what animal agriculture is really like.

Gary has done stuff in regards to transitioning to Veganism, but in all of his essays and videos we've seen from him, he has not once addressed the issue of recidivism and likes to operate under the assumption that everyone he convinces to go vegan stays vegan. In one interview he claimed that 20% of each class he lectures to goes vegan. That's a pretty decent stat all things considered, but taking into account recidivism diminishes that number to just 6%. Better than 0%, but still quite a far cry, and depending on the size of the class, that could be less than one person. There's no way Gary is unaware of this issue, but he seems to choose it ignore it, at the peril of the animals.

Yes, it is frustrating to think your activism is only 30% as effective as you think it is, but knowing this and doing your best to minimize it is essential towards a vegan world. Not acknowledging it obviously doesn't make it go away, and does nothing to solve the issue.

Boycotting of Sweatshops

As counter-intuitive as it may be, buying from sweatshops is actually the ethical thing to do, as it supports developing economies and raises living standards for their citizens. Sweatshop jobs are the best jobs available to these people (in terms of pay and working conditions) and not buying from sweatshops causes these factories to go out of business, and thus forces the workers to find work on a farm (which is even worse than a sweatshop job) or more illicit jobs such as drug-dealing and prostitution.

Anyway, Gary makes a point about not buying from sweatshops and claims he only buys fair-trade goods. The reason why we're bringing this up is because really, even Gary should know better than this.

Refusing to eat with non-vegans

Condemning people going Vegan for Health Reasons

Losing his cool

Against Helper Animals

The Very Bad

Failure to recognize Moral Gradience

Alienating Views on Human Rights

Gary opposes human rights on the grounds that it distracts from the advancement of animal rights; He might have some insight on that, but opposing human rights is not the solution, and (as will be explained) will just put people off even more.

How about instead of condemning the advancement of human rights, how about you tell these human rights advocates that if they really want to advance human rights causes, they should also be Vegans themselves (as animal agriculture is also one of the biggest HUMAN rights issues of our time when it comes to the environment, food security, pathogens, antibiotics, water and land use, among other things)?

A problem you'll see is that Gary has no filter; He always speaks exactly what he thinks, and we're not necessarily condemning that, but for the sake of being a decent activist, he has to keep a filter of some sort, since some of the positions he holds are extremely alienating. We've talked about this in our Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism article, where we talk about how loudly advocating crazy ideas makes vegans look nutty and radical and thus turns people away from Veganism. Gary, if you're reading this, we don't care how right you think you are on these issues, YOU KEEP THESE IDEAS TO YOURSELF. I know you want everyone to know your views, but vegan activism isn't about you, it's about the animals. So when you say shit like "FUCK HUMAN RIGHTS!" you're putting so many people off of veganism (and thus contribute more to animal suffering). When you're in a position like this Gary, you have to be more responsible about what comes out of your mouth. If you just say all this without regards to consequence, it starts to become less about the animals and more about your narcissistic hatred of humanity. We believe this is one of the reasons why you retired in the first place; YOU were tired of humanity, while forgetting the long-term goal of helping the animals.

What Gary is seeking to accomplish with this is beyond me. Being controversial is fine, and in fact can be very useful in exposing more people to Veganism, but there are some things you just don't say.

Also Gary is a racist. He claims black lives matter more than white lives. I highly doubt the BLM movement would appreciate such a message being associated with them.

Anti-GMO

This one is pretty cringy.

When asked about his thoughts on GMO's, Gary's position is more or less an appeal to nature in the most embarrassing way possible. He says some stuff about how God designed food perfectly and we shouldn't interfere with it... Oh boy, where to begin.

Even if God did design fruits and vegetables, the ones you're eating are not how "God" designed them. Look up unmodified banana if you want an idea of what I'm on about. The plants you're eating are artificial; man-made. They're about as natural as the device you're using to read this on.

Almost all plant foods are selectively bred (not GM modified) versions of their original selves. You go to the produce section of your grocery store, probably over 90% of that is modified from its original version (again, not GM modified, mind you). While there is an argument to be made about how the selectively bred foods have less nutrition overall (as they've been bred for taste, not health), they haven't become poison, they're just slightly less nutritious (and they are tastier than their original versions; If them being tastier helps people eat more of them, they're probably healthier in that respect).

As for actually Genetically Modified Crops, they are perfectly safe to eat, and pose no health risk to anyone, and are a crucial tool towards sustainably feeding a growing global population. The fear-mongering on this is leading to more environmental destruction and greenhouse gas emissions (as GM crops are much more efficient than non-GM crops, and ESPECIALLY organic crops).

Gary has said in one of his speech Q&A's that he doesn't care if something's 'natural' or not, but this is highly doubtful, given all of this.

To make matters worse, he often says that animal agriculture is the root cause of world hunger (which is very likely isn't, though it does cause problems with food security), despite the fact that fear-mongering over GMO crops is probably a bigger cause; Wealthy countries have offered poorer ones food aid, but it's often turned down because it's genetically modified (again, thanks to promotion of fear-mongering around it), meaning food that would have fed their hungry population was rejected. This type of ignorant Western pseudoscience is making its way to the developing world and making citizens of these countries scared of technology that can save their lives. You'll see similar stuff like this with Nuclear Energy and Vaccinations.

The Very, Very Bad

Misanthropy

Gary has made it abundantly clear that he is an extreme misanthrope; He despises ALL of humanity, and believes that human beings are "a scourge on this planet." Ugh... let's try to keep this short.

In Gary's words, he claims that "humanity thrives on abuse, discrimination and injustice 24/7..." Yes, we just thrive on abuse all day everyday don't we? Nevermind the major declines in violence in the past several centuries, the decline of rape, murder, theft, and other crimes, nevermind the efforts to secure healthcare and education for all, the major advancements in technology and medicine that maximize our quality of life and minimize our environmental footprint, nevermind the rise of humanitarian organizations, the abolition of torture and slavery, granting more rights and privileges to once oppressed groups, the fact that billions have been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades alone, hell, nevermind how there are so many vegan alternatives nowadays so we can have all the tastes we love without causing any harm, NEVERMIND ALL OF THAT. According to Gary, we just thrive on abuse all the time, don't we?

Make no mistake, we have quite a ways to go; There are still animals suffering, environmental harms, wars, dictatorships, starvation, oppression based on religion, race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc.,

Gary then goes on to say "...we are the nastiest, filthiest, deadliest parasitic-organisms to ever infect The Universe!" Oh my... dude, Gary, come on, mentally progress beyond the age of high school for once.

Advocacy of violence

Views on Justice

This highlights Gary's profound ignorance on morality. Long story short, he believes in taking the eye for an eye principle and amping it up like ten thousand (for instance, he thinks rapists should be raped and tortured themselves). As anyone who is remotely well-versed on this subject knows, vengeance does NOT mean GOOD. This is something Gary fails to realize, since he's letting emotions dictate what he thinks ought to happen rather than reasoning and evidence.

Not only is it immoral... It's pretty damn stupid too. This type of thinking is childish and lacks any sort of nuance in the topic. It also shows a blatant example of hypocrisy, since he seems to believe himself immune from this. For instance, he has claimed that people who buy fur coats should be raped (since the animals are anally electrocuted) , even though he once owned a fur coat. So, should he also be raped? By his logic, yes. He could make the defense that he was ignorant of it at the time and that's fair enough, until you consider that with this reasoning he's assuming EVERYONE ELSE is aware of the harm they're doing.

The problem of justice is pretty well-established in ethics, where deontological ideas of justice are harmful, whereas ideas of rehabilitation almost always works better. Wonder what his views on the Norway prison system are.

If we lived in a society where every misdeed was punished like this there'd be no moral progress. People can change. After all, he was a meat-eater at one point, no? And then he became one of the biggest voices for animal rights. Why can't this apply to other people, and other crimes and transgressions?

There's a chance Gary's just being stupid for the sake of publicity here. If he really believed that evil things should happen to evil people then why is he bothering trying to get others to go vegan? Shouldn't he be advocating for their deaths?

What's funnier is that he claims that he's shocked how people are calling him a rape supporter... even though he's literally supporting rape, just for different people.

Failed career as a rapper