My main disagreement is that carnism is far more common than veganism, is the status quo and is in a literal sense ‘normal’ in most parts of the world. I think this means that eating vegan food around meat eaters actually has the opposite effect to what is argued in this piece, and ‘normalises’ veganism rather than carnism. This is why I think it is likely that vegans avoiding eating at tables with people who are eating animal products would be counterproductive and make animal liberation less likely (I think group dinners with multiple non-vegans would only very rarely end up going vegan to accommodate a Liberation Pledger, and the effects of this would not outweigh the harms of all the missed dinners where meat eaters would see a vegan eating vegan food).
Also, with critique 3:
1. I think you did refute the claim that “radicalism is inherently bad”, but the claim that “this intervention is too radical because will be less effective at achieving animal liberation than more moderate interventions” was not adequately engaged with. I don’t think it was adequetly explained why this was considered to be a bad-faith argument. From my reading, it seemed like the general argument that “a more moderate sounding intervention might be more effective at achieving goal X than a more radical sounding intervention” is being viewed as inherently bad-faith. But for any radical intervention, it is usually very easy to come up with a more radical intervention that makes the initial intervention sound moderate. For example, it is not difficult to think of ‘more radical’ proposals than the Liberation Pledge, but it seems irrational to immediately dismiss the idea that “the Liberation Pledge could be more effective at achieving animal liberation than more radical proposals”.
2. I think “picking the side of the oppressor vs picking side of the oppressed” is mainly useful as a rhetorical device to build support for movements (admittedly I don’t like it for this purpose either), but it is too simplistic a way of thinking about our choices when discussing changing the world on a large scale. There is a very large spectrum of interventions we can implement in terms of the extent to which they make animal liberation more or less likely. Some interventions make animal liberation a lot more likely, some make it very slightly more likely, and I think simply viewing them as ‘siding with the oppressed’ can overlook these important differences (eg—it’s possible that fewer people siding with animals via interventions with large effects could get us closer to animal liberation than more people siding with animals but via interventions with very small effects).
3. I think if we’re forcing people to take sides, the major risk that you rightly consider is that too many people (and too many powerful people) take the wrong side, making animal liberation less likely. But I am not confident that people’s claims to be in favour of animal welfare and against animal cruelty will translate to the majority picking the correct side here—I expect that enjoyment of the taste of animal products would overcome worries about animal cruelty, and a majority of people would choose carnism over veganism.
thanks for this thoughtful response! for the most part, i don’t disagree (and think with some clarification on my end, we may be able to agree 🤞).
in short, i don’t view the Pledge as the only valid option for advancing this movement; rather, i believe a diversity of tactics are required to push this movement forward, and see the pledge as an important (though currently overlooked) tactic amongst these. given this position, i generally agree with most of your points above—but i don’t think that detracts from the importance of a small (but increasingly growing) population practicing and advocating the Pledge.
specifically, in advocating for the Pledge, i don’t expect every animal advocate to immediately jump on board (and critiques of the Pledge that assume this is the argument are similar, imo, to critiques of veganism that ask what we do with all the farmed animals currently living if everyone goes vegan immediately). rather, my hope is that for now, the select group of animal advocates most passionate about driving this cause forward (and most willing to make personal “sacrifices” to do so) will adopt the Pledge. in doing so, they will create space for future generations of uptake to become more feasible. just as importantly, in the process they will drag the overton window to make veganism (and other similar measures) seem less radical and more feasible by comparison. i.e., by taking the Pledge, activists create more space for all other animal advocates to move more freely.
so yes, i do think it is important to have people in the movement eating vegan around carnists. i also think that we can be doing more, and for those willing, we should be doing more to push the movement forward. the harms caused by Big Meat are urgent and massive, and deserve activism (at least at leading edge) that responds accordingly.
Thanks for your post!
My main disagreement is that carnism is far more common than veganism, is the status quo and is in a literal sense ‘normal’ in most parts of the world. I think this means that eating vegan food around meat eaters actually has the opposite effect to what is argued in this piece, and ‘normalises’ veganism rather than carnism. This is why I think it is likely that vegans avoiding eating at tables with people who are eating animal products would be counterproductive and make animal liberation less likely (I think group dinners with multiple non-vegans would only very rarely end up going vegan to accommodate a Liberation Pledger, and the effects of this would not outweigh the harms of all the missed dinners where meat eaters would see a vegan eating vegan food).
Also, with critique 3:
1. I think you did refute the claim that “radicalism is inherently bad”, but the claim that “this intervention is too radical because will be less effective at achieving animal liberation than more moderate interventions” was not adequately engaged with. I don’t think it was adequetly explained why this was considered to be a bad-faith argument. From my reading, it seemed like the general argument that “a more moderate sounding intervention might be more effective at achieving goal X than a more radical sounding intervention” is being viewed as inherently bad-faith. But for any radical intervention, it is usually very easy to come up with a more radical intervention that makes the initial intervention sound moderate. For example, it is not difficult to think of ‘more radical’ proposals than the Liberation Pledge, but it seems irrational to immediately dismiss the idea that “the Liberation Pledge could be more effective at achieving animal liberation than more radical proposals”.
2. I think “picking the side of the oppressor vs picking side of the oppressed” is mainly useful as a rhetorical device to build support for movements (admittedly I don’t like it for this purpose either), but it is too simplistic a way of thinking about our choices when discussing changing the world on a large scale. There is a very large spectrum of interventions we can implement in terms of the extent to which they make animal liberation more or less likely. Some interventions make animal liberation a lot more likely, some make it very slightly more likely, and I think simply viewing them as ‘siding with the oppressed’ can overlook these important differences (eg—it’s possible that fewer people siding with animals via interventions with large effects could get us closer to animal liberation than more people siding with animals but via interventions with very small effects).
3. I think if we’re forcing people to take sides, the major risk that you rightly consider is that too many people (and too many powerful people) take the wrong side, making animal liberation less likely. But I am not confident that people’s claims to be in favour of animal welfare and against animal cruelty will translate to the majority picking the correct side here—I expect that enjoyment of the taste of animal products would overcome worries about animal cruelty, and a majority of people would choose carnism over veganism.
thanks for this thoughtful response! for the most part, i don’t disagree (and think with some clarification on my end, we may be able to agree 🤞).
in short, i don’t view the Pledge as the only valid option for advancing this movement; rather, i believe a diversity of tactics are required to push this movement forward, and see the pledge as an important (though currently overlooked) tactic amongst these. given this position, i generally agree with most of your points above—but i don’t think that detracts from the importance of a small (but increasingly growing) population practicing and advocating the Pledge.
specifically, in advocating for the Pledge, i don’t expect every animal advocate to immediately jump on board (and critiques of the Pledge that assume this is the argument are similar, imo, to critiques of veganism that ask what we do with all the farmed animals currently living if everyone goes vegan immediately). rather, my hope is that for now, the select group of animal advocates most passionate about driving this cause forward (and most willing to make personal “sacrifices” to do so) will adopt the Pledge. in doing so, they will create space for future generations of uptake to become more feasible. just as importantly, in the process they will drag the overton window to make veganism (and other similar measures) seem less radical and more feasible by comparison. i.e., by taking the Pledge, activists create more space for all other animal advocates to move more freely.
so yes, i do think it is important to have people in the movement eating vegan around carnists. i also think that we can be doing more, and for those willing, we should be doing more to push the movement forward. the harms caused by Big Meat are urgent and massive, and deserve activism (at least at leading edge) that responds accordingly.