The only thing I have strong evidence for, for investigations in particular, is “leaving aggressive, time-consuming comments”.
And I think that’s about all they can do to non-EAAs for asking questions, because vegan advocacy isn’t that powerful outside its sphere. It wouldn’t surprise me if my recent posts cost me e.g. the ability to get grants from Animal Welfare Fund[1], but this is the only project of mine that would affect[2]. It’s possible people within EAA would be treated more harshly, but also possible they’d be treated more kindly since they’d be able to signal in-group-ness in various ways.
The worst instance of use of symmetric weapons by EAAs I’ve heard of is DxE threatening to disrupt EAG 2015 if meat was served, and that this was a major reason meat hasn’t been served at EAG since.[3]
Several years ago AWF reached out to ask if I wanted to apply for funding for a research question, and gave several suggestions for things I could investigate. So I think getting funding from AWF was a live option for me at one point.
When my first grant ran out and I was looking for both more funding and a VA co-founder to study the question in more detail, I reached out to two members of VA. One didn’t respond, and I only just realized the other email bounced. I used the email they’d reached out to me with, but I guess it was tied to a specific project that has since closed. One missed email
That’s the first I’ve heard of that disruption threat. But—just judging from that sentence—it sounds completely reasonable to me! Asymmetric weapons and improving the discourse are good aims generally, yes, but there are substantial barriers in place to these actually occurring.
I don’t really have enough info to judge what the actual counterfactual would be here, but generally the counterfactual reality in these sorts of discussions isn’t everyone coming together in harmonious logical debate. Incrimination and the four Ns are a strong countervailing force! That we have a norm in 2023 where quite disparate people (in background, field) come together on eating vegan is pretty much unprecedented.
The only thing I have strong evidence for, for investigations in particular, is “leaving aggressive, time-consuming comments”.
And I think that’s about all they can do to non-EAAs for asking questions, because vegan advocacy isn’t that powerful outside its sphere. It wouldn’t surprise me if my recent posts cost me e.g. the ability to get grants from Animal Welfare Fund[1], but this is the only project of mine that would affect[2]. It’s possible people within EAA would be treated more harshly, but also possible they’d be treated more kindly since they’d be able to signal in-group-ness in various ways.
The worst instance of use of symmetric weapons by EAAs I’ve heard of is DxE threatening to disrupt EAG 2015 if meat was served, and that this was a major reason meat hasn’t been served at EAG since.[3]
Several years ago AWF reached out to ask if I wanted to apply for funding for a research question, and gave several suggestions for things I could investigate. So I think getting funding from AWF was a live option for me at one point.
When my first grant ran out and I was looking for both more funding and a VA co-founder to study the question in more detail, I reached out to two members of VA. One didn’t respond, and I only just realized the other email bounced. I used the email they’d reached out to me with, but I guess it was tied to a specific project that has since closed. One missed email
Source: Oliver Habryka, an organizer at EAG 2015 and 2016
That’s the first I’ve heard of that disruption threat. But—just judging from that sentence—it sounds completely reasonable to me! Asymmetric weapons and improving the discourse are good aims generally, yes, but there are substantial barriers in place to these actually occurring.
I don’t really have enough info to judge what the actual counterfactual would be here, but generally the counterfactual reality in these sorts of discussions isn’t everyone coming together in harmonious logical debate. Incrimination and the four Ns are a strong countervailing force! That we have a norm in 2023 where quite disparate people (in background, field) come together on eating vegan is pretty much unprecedented.