One challenge I notice in our movement is that many vegans (myself included at times) lean heavily on moral outrage and emotion when talking to the public. It comes from a real place the suffering of animals is unbearable, and that drives the urgency. But when communication is mostly emotional, it risks losing clarity and persuasiveness. The message can get lost in the translation of the narrative because it feels more like an expression of personal pain than a grounded argument that someone outside the movement can follow.
Without balancing emotion with logic, strategy, and evidence, the communication often doesn’t land. It convinces those who already feel the same, but it rarely shifts people who are indifferent, defensive, or simply pragmatic in their worldview. That’s where I see Tobias’s point about research and incrementalism mattering: not because the emotional voice is wrong, but because by itself it isn’t strong enough to carry the broader public along.
thanks, i tend to agree. I guess emotional appeals are often lacking, and so is rationality. Though there are people for whom either can work. One just needs to find them, and tailor the message and communication style to them—but it’s easier said than done :)
Thank for bringing this up @tobiasleenaert
One challenge I notice in our movement is that many vegans (myself included at times) lean heavily on moral outrage and emotion when talking to the public. It comes from a real place the suffering of animals is unbearable, and that drives the urgency. But when communication is mostly emotional, it risks losing clarity and persuasiveness. The message can get lost in the translation of the narrative because it feels more like an expression of personal pain than a grounded argument that someone outside the movement can follow.
Without balancing emotion with logic, strategy, and evidence, the communication often doesn’t land. It convinces those who already feel the same, but it rarely shifts people who are indifferent, defensive, or simply pragmatic in their worldview. That’s where I see Tobias’s point about research and incrementalism mattering: not because the emotional voice is wrong, but because by itself it isn’t strong enough to carry the broader public along.
thanks, i tend to agree. I guess emotional appeals are often lacking, and so is rationality. Though there are people for whom either can work. One just needs to find them, and tailor the message and communication style to them—but it’s easier said than done :)