Effective Advocacy: Striking the Balance Between Radical and Accessible Approaches
During yesterday’s Effective Animal Advocacy Meetup, we had a thought-provoking discussion on the Kurzgesagt video[1]about animal suffering and the ethical implications of our consumption choices.
While I appreciated the variety of viewpoints shared, one critique stood out: the video was seen by some as too soft-spoken on such harsh realities. The message, while important, was perceived as lacking in decisiveness. It called for us to eat less meat but didn’t emphasize the more urgent moral call to eliminate animal suffering entirely.
As someone who is passionate about both animal rights and feminism, this critique reminded me of a similar dilemma I had while watching the Barbie movie. Many people found it groundbreaking in its portrayal of feminist themes, but my friends and I were left disappointed. We felt the movie only scratched the surface, offering a light, rather than radical, take on feminism. It touched on key ideas but didn’t go deep enough to truly challenge the status quo in a way we hoped for.
However, an acquaintance of mine offered an insightful perspective on the film. She explained that the film’s approach—gentle, humorous, and palatable—was a strategic choice. By making feminism approachable and accessible, it attracted a wide range of viewers, each standing at different points along the spectrum of feminist thought. The movie didn’t push people away with radical ideas but instead provided a gateway to the topic, encouraging viewers to explore deeper questions on their own.
Reflecting on this, I realized that the same logic can apply to the anti-meat video. As much as we, as advocates, may wish for a more assertive, all-encompassing stance against animal suffering, we must remember that such an approach can be alienating to those who are still early in their journey or who may not yet be willing to confront the most challenging ethical truths. The producers of these videos, whether on animal rights or feminism, may deliberately take a more accessible and less confrontational route in order to invite broader audiences into the conversation.
The key takeaway here is that effective advocacy often lies in meeting people where they are, not where we expect them to be.
Just as the Barbie movie’s more mainstream feminist message could spark curiosity without overwhelming viewers, so too can a softer, more gradual approach in animal advocacy create space for reflection and discussion without immediately pushing people away. It’s a strategy of inclusion—ensuring that the conversation is wide enough to invite those on the fringe, rather than only preaching to the converted.
At the end of the day, while we may feel frustrated that these pieces don’t always present the hard-hitting, uncompromising truth we hold dear, it’s essential to acknowledge the value in opening the door for those who might not yet be ready to walk through it. Radical change often begins with small, digestible steps, and sometimes the most impactful shift happens when people are encouraged to ask questions, rethink their habits, and explore further—without feeling alienated by an all-or-nothing approach.
Happy to hear your thoughts!:)
One thing to worry about here is deception. All things being equal, it’s general a reason against doing something that is deceives people, and trying to ease people in gently can be a special case of that because it’s deceiving them about the beliefs you hold. It also might stop you yourself getting useful information, since if you only introduce your more and unusual and radical commitments to people who’ve already been convinced by your more mainstream ones, you are missing out on criticism of the radical commitments from the people most opposed to them.
This sort of thing has been an issue with EA historically: people have accused EA leaders (fairly or not) of leading with their beliefs about global poverty to give the impressiont that that is what they (the leader) and EA are really all about, when actually what the leader really cares about is a bunch of much more controversial things: AI safety, longtermism or niche animal welfare stuff like shrimp welfare.
I’m not saying that this means no one should ever introduce people to radical ideas gently, I think it can be reasonable, just that this is worth keeping in mind.
Thank you for the great insight. I agree with you about the deception concern, as one might end up with growing fearful skepticism when introducing ideas gradually and then going more radical, without genuine and constructive criticism driven by genuine curiosity and genuine interest in improving the movement.
However, could you please elaborate on this point “if you only introduce your more and unusual and radical commitments to people who’ve already been convinced by your more mainstream ones, you are missing out on criticism of the radical commitments from the people most opposed to them.”? It might be what I touched upon in the first part of this comment, but I’d appreciate your clarification.