Some vegans may feel expressing sentiments of empathy with meat-eaters (or the “bad guys”) is somehow legitimizing violence to animals. Anything short of total condemnation is seen as selling out, giving in, betrayal of the vegans, the animals, or both. But humans are emotional creatures, and persuasion starts by building bridges, not burning them down. The public aren’t our enemies, they’re the people we need to reach. And as long as we make them our enemies, we don’t stand much chance of reaching them.
DAVID RAMMS: Many of us vegans have this idea that we need to be harsh, provocative, direct and confrontational. Anything less is “letting the animals down”, or giving in… In some cases it’s true, direct, provocative messaging is needed. But In many cases, especially when facing the public, there’s a strong chance it’s pushing people in the opposite direction…
When someone is raging, cheering on violence against activists, the last thing they expect is empathy. But empathy can diffuse the situation and bring down barriers. Then, this can lead into attempts to nudge them over to a more reasonable position.
Will they immediately become vegan? Probably not. But they might stop cheering for violence against vegans, and that’s important. It’s a step closer to seeing us as fellow citizens who deserve the right to free speech without fear of violence. Not as enemies, but as people trying to make a point. We move them a little closer to taking the vegan message seriously…
We’ve seen throughout history that peaceful, disruptive protests can backfire on those who react violently to them, sparking public sympathy for the protestors. During the civil rights sit-ins, for example, many people who had previously been indifferent were moved to care not necessarily because they understood the full moral case, but because they were shocked and appalled by the treatment of these nonviolent protestors.
The same thing can happen here. People might not agree with our ethics straight away, but they might see the brutality of the response to us and question why it’s happening. That alone can be a wedge into their conscience. And it’s worth encouraging others to see violent reactions to our protests in a negative light…
Some vegans may feel expressing sentiments of agreement or empathy with the “bad guys” is somehow legitimising violence to animals. As though empathising with “the enemy” signals that what they’re doing to animals is okay. Anything short of total condemnation is seen as selling out, giving in, betrayal of the vegans, the animals, or both…
The public aren’t our enemies, they’re the people we need to reach. And as long as we make them our enemies, we don’t stand much chance of reaching them. It’s not “validating animal abuse” to, for example, acknowledge that someone’s angry reaction to a protest makes sense. It’s recognising that humans are emotional creatures, and that persuasion starts by building bridges, not burning them down… Should we be bold? Should we be direct? Absolutely. But if the goal is change, and not just catharsis, it’s unlikely tribalism is going to help…
As we navigate the complexities of trying to change the world for animals,… we should try to keep our pre-vegan selves in mind, and use that to make our activism as effective as possible… At the end of the day, when so many lives are at stake, I think we owe it to ourselves and animals to keep looking for what works, and not settle for what feels like it work. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: