I trip up on people in the 'moveable middle', I’ve often seen it framed as people who are simply 'undecided'.
I think more is going on here that involves:
1. Access to trustworthy facts/science on the topic.
2. Ability / opportunity / sufficient curiosity to think about the issue in depth.
If these conditions are met, I wonder how many people would remain in the middle. I would bet most would move, and mostly to the right in the case of animal rights and sentientism, since these are backed by solid arguments and universal values of compassion.
When it comes to comparing animal abuse with racism (and, as is often mentioned, slavery), like your research shows, I think this is a risky move at best. It requires an expert ability to present this argument with a great deal of nuance and tact. (I can think of only one person who consistently delivers on this front, though I've rarely heard him draw the human-animal parallels we're talking about here. But if anyone could stand a chance at doing it, it would be Ed Winters.)
Even then, I don't think messaging like "factory farming is the same as human slavery" should ever be used as a conversion tactic. Not least because racism and slavery as topics are incredibly triggering, but because comparisons can't be drawn all the way down. Us advocates need to remember that the act of enslaving people as an 'acceptable’ way to structure industry is a recent historical occurrence—and it’s still happening in parts of the world.
I can’t imagine this argument going down well with someone whose actual great-grandfather, or even grandfather, was enslaved.
Yes good writing and research, but oh so long. The idea is to outline the suffering of animals (why just psychological and not physical harm?) to access peoples compassion for that suffering. Some still view animals as non feeling beings that dont matter or provide for human needs, despite that suffering. The evidence shows that they do experience suffering and/or flourishing. So compassion is the more reasonable approach. This is the world view of Sentientism defined, a growing global community.
Great post. Like other "isms", recognising speciesism is likely something that happens further along the journey - after an individual has pieced together the unfairness of the situation and made their own conclusion. No doubt plenty of people exhibit traits that some find sexist or racist or ableist, but would reject such accusations.
It's the seeds of empathy that are important for tipping non/pre-vegans in the right direction, rather than trying to pitch the more holistic concepts of speciesism vs veganism.
Incredibly useful post, thank you. As a long-time advocate for animals, I was particularly struck by the participant quote you shared around the speciesism argument ("You’re saying that because I know that animals have been killed to go on my plate, that I could have racist views or be against certain cultures or races.”).
This reminds me of subtext in human communication, what is implied or unsaid. Your naming it is helpful in my thinking through future frameworks. People want to be thought of as good, as you've said. Finding common ground (psychological harms narrative) is so helpful.
Kind of similar to when someone says they are only buying "humane" meat, I first express appreciation that they care about animals (rather than launching into why it's not actually humane, etc). Anyway--thank you again!
It appears to me that speciesism and oppression are negative terms. The same message can be framed in a hopeful and positive way - that our consciousness as humanity is expanding. We earlier treated some humans as slaves, women as inferior and LGBT as abnormal. Now it is no longer acceptable though we may not have completely addressed these yet. Hence our consciousness is now beginning to include non human animals also. I have found this line of argument to resonate strongly.
This is very helpful, thank you!
This was a valuable post, thank you!
I trip up on people in the 'moveable middle', I’ve often seen it framed as people who are simply 'undecided'.
I think more is going on here that involves:
1. Access to trustworthy facts/science on the topic.
2. Ability / opportunity / sufficient curiosity to think about the issue in depth.
If these conditions are met, I wonder how many people would remain in the middle. I would bet most would move, and mostly to the right in the case of animal rights and sentientism, since these are backed by solid arguments and universal values of compassion.
When it comes to comparing animal abuse with racism (and, as is often mentioned, slavery), like your research shows, I think this is a risky move at best. It requires an expert ability to present this argument with a great deal of nuance and tact. (I can think of only one person who consistently delivers on this front, though I've rarely heard him draw the human-animal parallels we're talking about here. But if anyone could stand a chance at doing it, it would be Ed Winters.)
Even then, I don't think messaging like "factory farming is the same as human slavery" should ever be used as a conversion tactic. Not least because racism and slavery as topics are incredibly triggering, but because comparisons can't be drawn all the way down. Us advocates need to remember that the act of enslaving people as an 'acceptable’ way to structure industry is a recent historical occurrence—and it’s still happening in parts of the world.
I can’t imagine this argument going down well with someone whose actual great-grandfather, or even grandfather, was enslaved.
Yes good writing and research, but oh so long. The idea is to outline the suffering of animals (why just psychological and not physical harm?) to access peoples compassion for that suffering. Some still view animals as non feeling beings that dont matter or provide for human needs, despite that suffering. The evidence shows that they do experience suffering and/or flourishing. So compassion is the more reasonable approach. This is the world view of Sentientism defined, a growing global community.
Great post. Like other "isms", recognising speciesism is likely something that happens further along the journey - after an individual has pieced together the unfairness of the situation and made their own conclusion. No doubt plenty of people exhibit traits that some find sexist or racist or ableist, but would reject such accusations.
It's the seeds of empathy that are important for tipping non/pre-vegans in the right direction, rather than trying to pitch the more holistic concepts of speciesism vs veganism.
Incredibly useful post, thank you. As a long-time advocate for animals, I was particularly struck by the participant quote you shared around the speciesism argument ("You’re saying that because I know that animals have been killed to go on my plate, that I could have racist views or be against certain cultures or races.”).
This reminds me of subtext in human communication, what is implied or unsaid. Your naming it is helpful in my thinking through future frameworks. People want to be thought of as good, as you've said. Finding common ground (psychological harms narrative) is so helpful.
Kind of similar to when someone says they are only buying "humane" meat, I first express appreciation that they care about animals (rather than launching into why it's not actually humane, etc). Anyway--thank you again!
It appears to me that speciesism and oppression are negative terms. The same message can be framed in a hopeful and positive way - that our consciousness as humanity is expanding. We earlier treated some humans as slaves, women as inferior and LGBT as abnormal. Now it is no longer acceptable though we may not have completely addressed these yet. Hence our consciousness is now beginning to include non human animals also. I have found this line of argument to resonate strongly.