One thing I think is worth clarifying and I’m curious what others think: while it’s good to de-emphasize each individual’s personal diet choices, I’m less sure if it’s good to de-emphasize the overall mission. There is the appeal of presenting a more accessible/less radical message
For example I know many of the leaders/organizations ultimately want to see an end to factory farming. But since this could also alienate people, instead we could talk about freeing dogs, and giving states the right to end the sale and import of cruel practices like caged hens. Those individuals might get more involved only to discover later that the end goal of the orgs they volunteer with is far more radical than initially stated.
On the plus side this means that some of the more agreeable goals have a broader coalition of supporters. On the downside this can lead to people feeling duped and perceiving the movement as lower integrity; like there was a bait and switch. What do people think about this trade-off/risk?
I think there’s a goal to reduce harm and abolish factory farming and that’s a different goal then turning everyone vegan. I think it helps people to also hear they’re personally not the enemy and they’re kinda unwilling consumers of factory farms rather than them being the ones actively commiting atrocities personally. In this sense a goal of ending factory farming (as opposed to turning everyone vegan) does not seem radical at all and most people support this goal very easily even though they eat meat.
Sorry I was imprecise when I said “ending factory farming”, I should have said “ending the consumption of all animal products/meat”, which I do think is what most orgs and org leaders would ultimately want, and would be seen as radical.
I agree that ending factory farming, if we mean to replace it with smaller very high welfare farming, is more agreeable, although again I doubt most people would support it if they knew the amount of meat they could consume and the accompanying price tag.
Well said and broadly on board.
One thing I think is worth clarifying and I’m curious what others think: while it’s good to de-emphasize each individual’s personal diet choices, I’m less sure if it’s good to de-emphasize the overall mission. There is the appeal of presenting a more accessible/less radical message
For example I know many of the leaders/organizations ultimately want to see an end to factory farming. But since this could also alienate people, instead we could talk about freeing dogs, and giving states the right to end the sale and import of cruel practices like caged hens. Those individuals might get more involved only to discover later that the end goal of the orgs they volunteer with is far more radical than initially stated.
On the plus side this means that some of the more agreeable goals have a broader coalition of supporters. On the downside this can lead to people feeling duped and perceiving the movement as lower integrity; like there was a bait and switch. What do people think about this trade-off/risk?
I think there’s a goal to reduce harm and abolish factory farming and that’s a different goal then turning everyone vegan. I think it helps people to also hear they’re personally not the enemy and they’re kinda unwilling consumers of factory farms rather than them being the ones actively commiting atrocities personally. In this sense a goal of ending factory farming (as opposed to turning everyone vegan) does not seem radical at all and most people support this goal very easily even though they eat meat.
Sorry I was imprecise when I said “ending factory farming”, I should have said “ending the consumption of all animal products/meat”, which I do think is what most orgs and org leaders would ultimately want, and would be seen as radical.
I agree that ending factory farming, if we mean to replace it with smaller very high welfare farming, is more agreeable, although again I doubt most people would support it if they knew the amount of meat they could consume and the accompanying price tag.