Should Vegans Soften Our Tone?
A reader at Animal Person recently wrote:
“I’ve actually met people who WANT to live vegan lives, but resist being associated with ‘vegans’! They continue to eat eggs and dairy almost out of protest against or potential fear of embarrassment about the ‘hardcore’ ‘purist’ vegan fiction.”
These are people who say they care deeply about animal welfare or animal rights, yet they won’t go vegan because they’re afraid of being associated with veganism. Others say they want to go vegan but they’re unwilling to cede the moral argument about animal rights to those ‘mean,’ ‘rude,’ ‘obnoxious’ vegans.
Regardless of their rationales, they’re staying omnivorous or vegetarian in order to spite vegans. They’re hurting animals in order to “get back” at vegans. Or so they think…
Could it really simply be plain, old fear and anger that prevents a vegan transformation? Or is it something else?
How often have we heard this type of reasoning? It comes in many forms:
- “You vegans hurt your message. Stop being so rude and obnoxious and then I’ll listen to you.”
- “I care about animals, but veganism is too extreme.” (example)
- “I’d go vegan except I’m not an animal rights activist.” (example)
- “Don’t tell me how to live. It’s my life.” (example)
- “Vegans think they’re morally superior.” (example)
- “Vegans are hypocritical.”
These “reasons” are not true. They are excuses, rationales, justifications, and regurgitated lies. The reality is that those excuses are merely talking points for proponents of animal exploitation. Literally, the examples linked above come from The Center for Consumer Freedom:
“The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the “Guest Choice Network”) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.” (source)
“A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned.” (source)
People say all kinds of things and use all kinds of excuses to justify their behavior. People’s verbal rationales for why they do what they do are not always accurate. We can’t simply trust everyone who says they continue to eat animal products because _. Sometimes they’re lying, even when they don’t know it.
This is evidenced by the fact that many people claim to continue eating meat because it tastes good, yet the same people can’t reliably and accurately distinguish the taste between real meat and faux meat. (source)
Obviously, anyone could stop eating eggs and dairy and also not associate with vegans. Lots of people recycle or drive hybrids yet don’t identify as environmentalists. Lots of people choose not to vote yet don’t identify as anarchists. Anyone can choose to eat a plant-based diet and call it whatever they want. Eating like a vegan doesn’t mean you have to adopt the stereotypical vegan image (whatever that is).
So when someone says they avoided or postponed veganism because the vegans they’d met were rude and obnoxious, that person is likely deluding themselves. In reality, they avoided or postponed veganism because they simply weren’t ready to go vegan.
Instead of listening to their conscience or the animals, they waited for vegans to provide them with the “right” argument, tone, or meal. And instead of thinking for themselves, they allowed anti-vegans to define their choices for them. They let industry front groups like The Center for Consumer Freedom dictate their choices, define their beliefs, and put words in their mouths.
The vegan image of being rude, hardcore, purist, or self-righteous, is not the problem. If you’re vegan and happen to be rude, hardcore, purist, and self-righteous so be it. There are plenty of polite, moderate, flexible, and humble vegans. There’s room for all of us.
Even if the “rude vegan” image were the problem, those who perpetuate the myth that vegans are rude would find a new way to discount veganism and promote carnism. That’s what they’ve been doing all along - they just keep finding new myths, lies, and spins.
We don’t need to reframe our pro-vegan messages.
We need to eliminate their anti-vegan messages.
I’m a vegan and I learned this lesson the hard way. It’s the heart of sanctimony to say we don’t need to soften our message because people who don’t want to hear it are just making excuses.
The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter who’s right. It matters that animals are suffering and dying. If we’re secure and confident enough in our own actions and the reasons why they make a difference in the world, we can show the rest of the world an example that isn’t difficult, angry or extreme.
Veganism isn’t a temple for the righteous whose doors you only get to pass through if you’re personally pure enough. Trust me, pointing a finger at “them” and showing all the reasons they’re wrong won’t help a single animal.
I agree with you. If someone wants to go vegan to help end the suffering of animals, then they’ll go vegan. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be associated with “hardcore” (or whatever adjective you want to put in here) vegans.
Also, these people can easily find vegans who have a “softer” edge. Colleen at CompassionateCooks.com is one of them.
I think blaming “hardcore” vegans is just an excuse to keep eating eggs and drinking milk.
~ Recent blog post: Farmed-Animal Industry Spending Millions to Quash Animal-Welfare Bill at http://www.diggingthroughthedirt.blogspot.com ~
Alan, I certainly understand your point. We ought to use the method or methods that are most effective for the animals.
And you’re probably right that the gentle, kind approach is generally more effective on a personal level (though, I can say for a FACT, that guilt-tripping works wonders on a personal level, too). Indeed, helping individuals understand veganism usually involves at least one vegan being exceptionally nice and understanding, walking omnis through it with baby-steps.
However, on a political and social level, I can’t simply “trust you” that we’re more effective if we soften our tone. For example, if the kind approach were so effective at changing or molding human behavior, why isn’t that the approach governments take? If negativity didn’t work to shift opinion, then why do political campaigns employ so much negativity?
I’m not completely disagreeing with you, Alan. I would just like to see the actual statistics and data that proves your point.
I don’t believe our tone needs to be softened because it cannot, given the issue(s) that this discourse surrounds. When having a conversation about torturing a baby cow, for example, how does one present the message that this is wrong in a “soft tone”? It seems to me that “hardness” emanates the issue itself. I can speak humbly, and respectfully - I ought too - , however, unnecessary suffering of this magnitude is in itself “harsh.”
These conversations regard difficult subject matter, and therefore, the parlance may take on a forceful tone. This really hasn’t ever been about “mud slinging” in personal conversations between vegans and non-vegans, generally speaking, and nor should it. Respect is necessitated by a free and open discourse. However, to “soften” our tone implies something problematic in the conversation as it currently stands. Which is erroneous, I think. So, the answer to your question Eccentric Vegan, is a resounding NO! As you argue, to “soften” is really a suggestion by proponents of animal exploitation to stop talking about it.
“It’s just your opinion” is another common attempted counter to our message. It’s a curious response. As you argue, these arguments aren’t reasons at all; they’re conversation-enders. Such responses don’t address our premises, or the support given for our arguments, it is a deflection. It is a cop-out engendered by a lack of reasons.
~ Recent blog post: Apparently, tobacco hurts people (and mice and rats) at http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg ~
I take issue with the idea that we should “soften” our tone. How do you discuss issues of life,death, pain, suffering without offending people? People who don’t want to go vegan use all kinds of excuses to justify what they do…they, in fact, just don’t care enough to want to save the animals from pain and suffering. They are selfish people and become annoyed when they are made to feel guilty by example of vegans. This is why they respond in anger and say we think we are above them. Quite frankly, anyone who puts the animals’ lives over their own IS above them. I had one person tell me that as long as they don’t see the suffering, they don’t think about it…out of sight, out of mind.For some reason these folks think animals are beneath humans and it doesn’t matter whether they feel and suffer. My motto: Vegans, keep on doing what you are doing and sing out the message however and wherever you can. Even one convert is better than none. Thanks for listening.
Because I remember the numbness and the dis-connect when I was eating animals I try to understand where other people’s heads are at (or not). Until I hear someone vocally pronounce their indifference to animal suffering I try to coax them toward my position with examples of comparing egrets to “chickens” or dogs to “pigs”. Once that connection is made it’s hard for them to (intelligently) wiggle out of.
BUT - those that do try to “rationalize” - I have little patience for. They’ve already made their decision to dis-regard their own rational conclusions. They choose to surrender their intellect to whim, it’s hard not to be critical of such people… whatever the issue might be.
I usually don’t persue the conversation much further… it only escalates; and with most, it’s an argument that can’t be won. Focus on the ones with objective open minds. They may be swayed in time to think clear headed about the very obvious hypocrasy of “loving animals and eating them.”