nico stubler

Karma: 25

nico is an activist and a scholar. They completed their M.A. in Animal Studies from New York University, and has led grassroots animal rights and environmental protection campaigns in Colombia, Colorado, New York, and California. Their work focuses on addressing Big Meat’s devastating harms with the urgency they demand, and is currently working working on a book, “Ban Meat? A Not-So-Radical Policy Proposal.”

The past year nico has worked on Animal Law and Policy with Harvard Law School, Richman Law & Policy, the Cambridge Centre for Animal Rights Law, and Compassionate Bay. During this time, they have published articles and chapters with the Journal for Critical Animals Studies, Routledge [forthcoming], Lantern Publishing [forthcoming], and Sentient Media.

nico stubler 10 Apr 2022 21:05 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Matt Goodman’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
hey Matt. thanks for the comment (and my apologies for the delayed response).
it’s a great question! the short answer is no, this kind of qualitative study has not [to my knowledge] been done; but—as i conclude the intro—i agree and think it should:
Despite being the first academic article to address this topic, I hope it will not be the last. Rather, given my belief in the power and relevance of the Liberation Pledge, I hope this article opens space for continued academic dialogue to follow. For not only is this topic rich with research potential—from qualitative research regarding the experiences of Pledge practitioners to theoretical work exploring its institutional applications—but more importantly, such research has the power to affect positive change.
i wholeheartedly agree that the Pledge can be practiced effectively, ineffectively, or harmfully (and feel the same way about vegan messaging in general). but when practiced skillfully, i view the Pledge has a particularly useful and effective intervention.
hopefully i’ll have time to work on further research in this space, but until then invite others to join in! more research is clearly needed (and in my opinion, more Pledge practitioners to study are needed as well).

nico stubler 9 Feb 2022 23:07 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: jasonk’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
hey Jason. i touch on this a bit in section I., and am happy to add further clarification here.
“The second level Torres discusses entails abstaining from eating at what he calls “tables of violence”—i.e., refusing to sit at a table where animal flesh and/or animal products are present. At this level practitioners are free to attend restaurants or events that serve animal products, even though doing so might necessitate sitting at a different table or in a different room when it is time to eat. The third level entails abstaining from eating in “places of violence”—i.e., refusing to go to any restaurant or event that profits directly from exploiting animals as food. This is the most challenging level, though it is made easier for individuals who have access to vegan-friendly venues and to those who have plant-based or open-minded family members.
While I myself practice the second level, I equally support the third as well, as both in my view are strategic and morally justifiable, albeit with their own strengths. For example, whereas the second level serves to open the range of events available to the practitioner (and thus their range of influence) without compromising the Pledge’s message, the latter powerfully clarifies that it is morally reprehensible for institutions to profit from animal exploitation irrespective of the practitioner or their cohort’s direct complicity in those profits. Consequently, while rejecting the first level, I do not advocate for adopting the second or third level. Instead, I encourage others to follow whichever option resonates, and do not distinguish between the two again in this article.”
the Pledge is centrally focused on de-normalizing the consumption of animal-based foods (i.e., carnism). some practitioners extend that to target institutions who profit from selling animal-based foods as well. hope that helps (and am happy to respond further if that’s not clear).

nico stubler 30 Jan 2022 18:19 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: freedomandutility’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
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.

nico stubler 30 Jan 2022 18:03 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: mic’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
that’s an interesting point (and unfortunately i think quite common). the difference between the two is cultural acceptability of each practice. broadly speaking, most would consider that position of your parents to be reasonable, and the position of a Pledger to be problematic. but that’s the very crux of the issue! and as i argue in section IV.3, practicing the Pledge is itself meant to address it.

nico stubler 30 Jan 2022 18:00 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Charles Dillon ’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
if i really wanted to be in that environment (i.e., feigning normalcy and pleasure while those in my company eat animal bodies [which, as argued in the article, i generally view as problematic]), i would attend without eating. in fact, i’ve done so myself on two occasions.
even so, i think if one was open to practicing the pledge in some circumstances but not all, they should still practice the pledge in those limited circumstances! we are all imperfect, and i don’t think we should allow a commitment to purity to prevent us from making positive progress. (in my eyes, i just don’t see the “sacrifices” that come with the Pledge to outweigh the benefits, but can understand that many don’t yet agree).

nico stubler 30 Jan 2022 17:54 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Monica’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
to answer your last question first, yes, i do share that concern! i think it is a very real and important consideration all Pledgers should center in the way we communicate it to others. (and while i note that a few times in the article, i could definitely have emphasized that stronger. thanks for flagging it). that said, i do think it is possible to communicate it in a way that is open, vulnerable, and engaging.
to answer your first question—how i would react—perhaps its easiest to note my initial reaction to the Pledge. when i first heard about it, i was openly against it. i thought it was problematic and counterproductive. however, the more i sat with the arguments for and against, the more i found myself changing my mind. that’s a common feature in my psychology (initial skepticism, leading to gradual warming). i think this reaction is fairly common (and has been my experience with practicing the pledge). so while i don’t expect the Pledge to always be welcomed with open arms (though have found the vast majority of people i’ve asked to accommodate me have been more than happy to do so), in the instances where that isn’t the case i believe the Pledge enables us to plant a firm seed that, while perhaps initially uncomfortable, ultimately creates the environment for positive growth moving forward.

nico stubler 30 Jan 2022 17:45 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
i think the Pledge can be an effective tool (amongst others) for individuals to challenge the harms caused by Big Meat. i.e., it can be used by activists focused on the harms to animals, to public health, to workers, to the environment, etc. the article copied below makes a compelling case for framing veganism in this way (and i think the same applies to the Pledge):
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10455752.2020.1837895
(fwiw, i define activism/activists quite broadly; far from being reserved from grassroots organizers on the street, i think activist can (and should) apply to anyone trying to change the social conditions we were born into. by that definition, i think most EAs fall into that category).

nico stubler 30 Jan 2022 17:38 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: PabloAMC’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
unfortunately, i think shockingly few people are willing to make significant personal “sacrifices” for ethical reasons (i put “sacrifice” in quotations because i don’t see being vegan as a sacrifice—the important thing, however, is that others still do...).
i think there are a lot of reasons that hold people back from “going” vegan… the [perceived] hassle, social cost, free-rider effect, associated identity change, etc.
i think the solution is winning systemic change, i.e., policies that change the entire decision-making environment. e.g., as i argue in my forthcoming book (shameless plug), if the sale of meat was banned, all of society would go vegetarian by default (and the collective transition would make it easier for everyone). this systemic change reduces (or eliminates) the hassle, social cost, fear of free riders undermining us, and the need to change identity that often comes with going vegan.
the key, in my mind, is creating the social conditions that will allow for far-reaching systemic changes to become viable, and i view the Pledge as one action (among others) that individuals can take to help.

nico stubler 29 Jan 2022 19:50 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Charles He’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
hey Charles. thanks for the Qs
1. yupp. i fully agree with part 1, disagree [in part] with part 2. the point of the Pledge (imo) is to stigmatize the consumption of eating animal-based foods, not to create vegans (per se). the Pledge doesn’t ask that we only eat with vegans.. it asks that we refuse to tolerate those around us not eating vegan around us.
2. yes, i do think the Pledge is unique (to the point of warranting publishing a journal article on it). i think the Pledge transforms the discussion in really important ways (the topic of parts II and IV of the article).
3. i’m always open to changing my mine (e.g., when i first heard about the Pledge i was openly against it). if i heard a compelling argument or saw reliable data against the pledge, i’d like to think i’d change accordingly (e.g., in the same way i came to eventually support the Pledge).

nico stubler 29 Jan 2022 19:40 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Charles Dillon ’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
hey Charles,
as i clarify in section I, the Pledge does not require we only attend vegan venues. it simply requires that we only eat at vegan tables. this essentially leaves all the same venues friendly to vegan consumption friendly to Pledge practitioners as well.

nico stubler 29 Jan 2022 19:37 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Monica’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
yes, if such a standard existed, i do think the similarities between these issues would be closer to outweighing their differences, and could see myself supportive a version of the Pledge in this context besides two remaining differences:
1. regarding food, both parties are already planning on making a new purchase, whereas regarding clothes, they aren’t. so while the liberation pledge is simply asking our acquaintances to make a new purchase they already plan to make in a different way, a pledge related to clothing is asking others to either retroactively make different purchases or make new purchases they didn’t plan to make.
2. the harms from clothing are further removed than with food. with food, the purchase and consumption happens in real time (which is why i think it’s so important to oppose/boycott in those moments). with clothes, the purchase occurred in the distant past, and the cost of its use is spread out over time (with every instance one wears it).
these differences, imo, make enforcement of a pledge related to clothing more costly, its messaging less direct, and thus its impact less positive.
[though to be fair, if such a list existed and following it was fairly practicable (as practicable as, say, finding vegan food), i’m sure you could convince of implementing it in some other way directed towards stigmatizing the brands that were on it]

nico stubler 29 Jan 2022 19:21 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
thanks for that link; i see what you are getting at.
yes, i do think practicing the Pledge comes with some of the costs you mention in other comment. i simply think that the harms of these systems are so devastating comparatively that practicing the Pledge is the least i can do.
moreover, from my experience, practicing the Pledge has increased—not decreased—my capacity for further activism. in section IV.7 i respond to the issue of moral licensing, which applies here:
”However, at least in this context, the opposite impact is more likely. Powerfully and publicly acting on one’s values every mealtime helps the practitioner to build their confidence and conviction. And rather than limiting one’s additional activism, this impassioned conviction more often spills over to inspire continued engagement in the movement.”

nico stubler 29 Jan 2022 19:13 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: PabloAMC’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
i think we are further along than most assume. yes, the percentage of vegans is devastatingly small. BUT, there is reason to believe there is rapid growing social support:
“Yet a 2014 U.S. survey found that 93 percent of respondents felt it was “very important” to buy their food from humane sources. Eighty-seven percent believe “farmed animals have roughly the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as humans.” And an astounding 47 percent of U.S. adults say in a survey that they support the seemingly radical policy change of “a ban on slaughterhouses.””
https://progressive.org/magazine/emptying-the-cages/
in my eyes, practicing the Pledge is a strategy for helping others who already feel open to these positions [i.e., the majority] reify their support.

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 17:23 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: LCyphe’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
thanks for this L. it seems you took from the article exactly what i was trying to express, and there are few better feelings as a writer.

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 17:20 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
hey Linch. i like this comment!
while i don’t fully agree,, thankfully i’m not sure i need to! the Pledge doesn’t require i spend new resources, i.e., it doesn’t come at the expense of other actions i can (and should) be doing in this space. rather, i see it as complimentary. i eat the same number of meals a day, the same types of food, and hopefully with the same people as i otherwise would.
to the extent practicing the Pledge does require additional social/emotional capital up front, i view it as an investment into my future self. (the more i have these convos, the easier they get; the more i have these convos, the less i need to have them (as they’ve already been had); failing to have these convos kicks the ball down the road, and forces continued [albeit buried] strain upon my relationships).

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 17:14 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Monica’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
thanks for this response Monica
i think it’s an interesting comparison, but do think there are notable differences between what we eat and wear.
regarding what we eat, the issue is pretty cut and dry. are they eating an animal, or not? (and as i argue in the article, i don’t think it makes sense to get into the nitty gritty of whether something is vegan or not. if it’s clearly not vegan, i’m clearly against it, but don’t require them dig into the supply chain, etc.).
regarding what we wear, the issue is less obvious. and i think that nuance makes a Pledge related to ethical clothing less practicable.
of course, that analysis is surely influenced by the fact that i’m already vegan, but still consume clothing made in what i’m sure are problematic conditions...
regardless, as Singer [persuasively] argues in “Famine, Affluence and Morality” (and as i cite in the article), ethics demand a lot of us. while challenging, i see the Pledge as a feasible and pragmatic way to address the devastating harms of Big Meat, and as such, think its incumbent upon myself to practice it.

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 17:00 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: mic’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
hey Michael. i think that’s one of the first questions many people who consider taking the Pledge have, and i’m glad you asked it.
a negative example: an uncle i haven’t seen in years was passing through new york city, and invited me out to dinner. i first noted my excitement to see and share a meal with him, second noted my commitment to never eat around those consuming animal-based foods, and finally asked if he’d prefer grabbing some vegan food with me or would rather just grab drinks. he elected to just get drinks.
while far from ideal, i was still able to connect with my uncle, and ended up having a positive conversation with him over drinks (a MUCH more healthy and positive conversation than i could have had if he were instead eating animal-based foods in front of me).
however, the vast majority of my requests are responses to with immediate excitement (e.g., “of course i’d be happy to eat vegan with you,” “i didn’t know how much being around meat impacted you. yes, i’ll be happy to try a vegan meal with you,” etc.).
note that in all of these cases, i prioritize having these conversations in advance of a meal, away from the act of eating animal-based foods. i find this to always be the most effective space to have these conversations.
regardless, my goal is to always to pursue the same relationships, just away from animal-based foods. i.e., i don’t just want to cut myself off from non-vegan tables, but invite my relationships to eat at a vegan table with me.
[fwiw, i 100% agree regarding the importance of focussing on institutional reform over individual change. as i responded to PabloAMC above, i advocate for the Pledge because i think it is an important action individuals can take to enable structural change moving forward]

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 16:48 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: steve823’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
thanks Steve 🙏

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 16:47 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Cam Era’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
i love hearing that. i’ve taken the Pledge for about the same length of time, and the more i’ve practiced it, the more i’ve come to believe in its efficacy.

nico stubler 28 Jan 2022 16:46 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ally Goddard’s comment on: The Liberation Pledge
thanks Ally!
agreed—i think these are super important conversations for us to be having.