Jump to content

Why are some vegans/activists so pushy?


Recommended Posts

I think I've said this before, but my consideration would be what is MOST EFFECTIVE in terms of campaigning. If you push people away by being too pushy/aggressive then what do you achieve in the end? I've met sooo many more or less mainstream people, you know, the kind of Joe/Joan Bloke who you want to inform/educate so that they change their ways, the kind of people you want to reach with campaigns, who are totally fed up with pushy animal rights activists. They don't want to know, they don't want to hear because they're not ready/able to deal with all that information in their face. Maybe that doesn't save the pig/cow/dog right now, but by using a different tactic you MIGHT just get them to think it over more slowly and they MIGHT go veggie or not buy a dog from a breeder later on in life.

I used to be really vocal with demos and all that, till I found that what I was achieving most of all was venting my anger. I'd find that people around me, who weren't involved in animal rights, had heard about the demo, and vaguely knew what it was about, but had only heard of clashes with the police and lots of shouting. It never seemd to generate any interest in what it really was about at all.

Now I've talked a lot to people about veganism, have fed a load as well, and that seems to go down well - talk as well as food. What I've been given the impression is that they've been curious about it, but never found that they had the opportunity to ask, because they didn't want to be called "ignorant" and "murderer" for not being vegan yet!

For me personally this works a lot better. I much more prefer being positive than being angry all the time, and if that means that people are more interested in what I have to say I feel I can reach more people more effectively then by shouting and waving banners at demos.

As much as I hate to say it, animal rights is about people. However much you don't like them or their ways, when it comes to Joe/Joan Bloke you have to play the game their way if you want to make any progress (I think - might be completely wrong here! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy,

 

I dont disagree with what you have said. This is what I wrote in another thread in the animal righst category:

 

"The problem with this statement is the "if somebody is interested". Of course if somebody is interested, we will show them the footage and let the images do most, if not all, of the talking. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. But this is the problem: Most people dont want to know, they dont want to see the suffering, they dont want to hear the suffering because they want to continue in their ways without feeling guilty. So what do we do with the wilfully blind - you know, the kind of people that cover their ears and eyes to the suffering while chewing a hamburger or wearing leather? Do we say "oh okay, since you arent really interested in compassion, I'll just stand back, leave you be, and allow you to continue in your ways without trying to educate you on the realities of your lifestyle choices." Um... if that was the approach that every animal rights person took, there would be far fewer vegans right now in the world, trust me on that one There are many different ways to be a voice for animals, and since the audience is a diverse group of humans, a diverse approach is necessary. Some people need shock therapy, others need flattery, others need gentle nudging, etc etc. You "feel" your audience and ascertain what approach they would be most receptive too. There is no "one size fits all" in animal rights approaches. One thing that could never help an animal, however, is inaction and silence in the face of indifference or resistance."

 

The purpose of my initial post in this thread, and the chosen title, is to get omni or vegetarian lurkers or members to click on it, and possibly (hopefully) watch the footage, on their own terms, without being "forced" to, in the privacy of their own rooms, with no animal rightist there to "intimidate" them, make them feel ignorant or stupid or morally bad, etc etc.

 

So do you understand now what this kind of post is really about? The images speak volumes, and I believe are very powerful tools to get people to have a change of heart. So posts like this one are meant to help get the footage out there and easily accessible to people, just a "click" away so to speak. Quite a few people on this site, as a result of that, have gone vegan.

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I hope lurkers and potential vegans read your invitation CG.

 

In general activist terms, I agree with MalcKiera. I think more people are reached by a friendly approach. Given what we know and find out every day, I know it's difficult, but an informative and friendly way is the best way to reach people, rather than hitting them over the head . Like it or not, an activist's role is public relations for the animals -- and that means getting people to see that it's wrong to use animals in a way that is acceptable to your target audience (not attacking them).

 

The only time I can think of that there would be a reason to "get in the face" of someone was if that person was hurting an animal at that time, as seen on those links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people, this aint about being pushy out there and getting in your face. This is about making links to informtive footage easily accessible. And like I said, this strategy has proven successful at VB&F. I highly recommend it over on VF as well. The point of the provocative title is to get omnis and vegetarian lurkers to "click", and then hopefully "click" on the video.

 

And, like I said, if you think that there is ONE CORRECT approach to activism, your wrong. No one approach has a monopoly on effectiveness, and to believe that it does is to deny the reality of the diversity of your audience. People respond to things differently. You need to be perceptive about what will work best depending on the circumstances.

 

This "best approach" "angry vegan" issue has been debated on VB&F and over on VF. I have no intention of engaging in this debate here - you both have missed the strategic goal of this thread (and threads like the "Meet your meat" bump).

 

That's okay, I'll just chalk it up to you still dont "get" me.

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CG if you notice, I said I hope lurkers take you up on your invitation -- I hope they do. I also said in terms of general activism that I agree with MalcKiera that most people respond to informative and friendly approaches -- like your discussion with the person who was reading a going vegetarian book.

 

No debate and no need to get testy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heehee - sorry about the cross post. I went back and added "I'll just chalk it up to you still dont get me" and added a wink emoticon because I realized that it would come across as testy/annoyed.

 

But you had made your posts already on my edit.

 

Very hard to convey tone on a message board.

 

Anyhow, ya, that is the deal with these provocative posts containing links.

 

 

....uhh, sorry, but my mind just wandered to tarz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err, i said i wasnt going to debate, but I need to say something:

 

How are we defining pushy? I try not to let a furwearer pass me by without either a leaflet or an "excuse mam but perhaps you werent aware that the animals on your back were genitally electrocuted."

 

I would say that isnt pushy and in your face. Some would say anytime you stop a fur wearer to share minor detail like that you are "in their face". I disagree and I think it is crucial that we dont allow furwearers to pass us by without speaking up for animals.

 

On the other hand, I think throwing red paint on somebody is pushy, and in all likelihood counterproductive.

 

Just to clarify what I think is "pushy" and "in your face."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Just to clarify what I think is "pushy" and "in your face."

 

 

I think thats determined by each individuals particular life experience. What I may classify as "pushy" the next may classify as "in your face", or more like"get the hell out of mine!".

 

I'm the sort of person that may be classified as "pushy", and very much "in your face". I like to persuade people to my way of thinking, in the nice kind of way (of course).

 

I generally tell people things that I think "they" need to know (even if they haven't asked). Ask my friends and family! Sometimes its good to be "out there!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off -- remember -- no debate here Nat. But to answer your question, I agree with savebabe's comments and I also agree that different methods work with different people; however, to clarify my opinion .....

How are we defining pushy?

I'm defining it as an individual walking up to an individual and getting in their face and yelling at them or physically assaulting them (ie paint, intimidation, getting physical, etc.)

I try not to let a furwearer pass me by without either a leaflet or an "excuse ma'am but perhaps you werent aware that the animals on your back were genitally electrocuted."

 

I would say that isnt pushy and in your face.

 

Some would say anytime you stop a fur wearer to share minor detail like that you are "in their face". I disagree and I think it is crucial that we dont allow furwearers to pass us by without speaking up for animals.

I agree -- leafletting or an informative comment or conversation (or even a look of ) isn't pushy -- but just walking up to someone and start telling them what a jerk they are or yelling at them and/or not letting the person leave until they agree with you on the spot imo is being pushy.

On the other hand, I think throwing red paint on somebody is pushy, and in all likelihood counterproductive.

This is not only counterproductive, it is detrimental to activists and animals. It gives furwearers and legislators ammunition to label activists and those against fur as terrorists and/or criminals, because like it or not that article of clothing is considered property. And really, what good does damaging it at that point do for the poor animal it was stolen from ? It's already dead and the fur wearer will go out and get another fur coat (thereby causing a demand and getting more animals killed. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of pushing a system of belief - one good thing to study is the rise of Mormonism in the U.S. Through constant proseltyzing (primarily by young men of the church) they have greatly increased their numbers in recent years, but they have also aroused a fair amount of animosity. I like to look at the whole "pushiness" thing from a statistical perspective - the ideal level of pushiness is the level that is most effective when rise in adherents v. animosity garnered is calculated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about being counterproductive. I think if you make a logical point it helps and if you do not, the point might never be made. Many people learn from social interactions. If no one ever says anything, if society just lets people continue to do something wrong, as if it is status quo, it will never change.

 

For example, (I do not do it as much), I would vocally object when I saw people throw spent cigarette butts to the ground. Based on facial expressions (shame) and actions (some smokers would stop and pick up their discarded butts and dispose of them in a trash receptacles etc., after I spoke) many understood and realized that they were wrong.

 

All I did was state the obvious, "you just littered (point to cigarette butt), why do you have a right to liter, why should all of society pay through being on littered streets so you can discard waste like that."

 

Now some of the littering smokers would respond to me in anger but many responded as if they realized I was right (examples above.) Maybe even those people that picked up their cigarette butts continued to throw cigarette butts down later but at least I illustrated a message that they were wrong. I think that is better than the rest of society confirming acceptance of the littering smokers actions by not saying anything.

 

I think the same applies to animal and abusing them. Much of society confirms that it is acceptable to eat animals, etc. Many restaurant commercials even make fun of eating animals (Chick-Fila and its cows saying eat more chicken and a recent Outback Steakhouse commercial that makes fun of vegetarians, are examples) to reinforce society's acceptance of it. With all the reinforcement, pointing out it is wrong is needed. Being passive and letting people be will just do that.

 

Now, I am not advocating ranting and jumping up and down. I feel that is not effective because the actor seems foolish. Instead look for related situations where you can illustrate the animal connection. For example, I had a friend recently bragging about how nice an upscale wine bar was. He said all the people were so elegant. I interjected, "yes drinking grape juice that was filtered through animal guts is real elegant. Animals parts are used to filter most wine, that is not very elegant in my opinion. It is rather gross." He then changed the subject. Maybe he will remember or maybe he will not, but without me saying what I did, he likely would never have known that animals are used to make wine. Now he does. And in my opinion, that adds to the pieces of the puzzle that will possibly make him realize that it is perverted how much we use animals in all our products and will counter his view that drinking wine in a fancy bar is elegant. Had I not said that the chances that he would see the connection are zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you make a logical point it helps and if you do not, the point might never be made. Many people learn from social interactions. If no one ever says anything, if society just lets people continue to do something wrong, as if it is status quo, it will never change.

 

Now, I am not advocating ranting and jumping up and down. I feel that is not effective because the actor seems foolish. Instead look for related situations where you can illustrate the animal connection.

No one said to be passive, take your opportunities where you can and I agree with you on the parts quoted, but I still think it's counterproductive to throw paint on a fur wearer for reasons stated above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an advocate for passionate causes without aggression. The most provocative stand against fur I have wintessed in Australia wsa a group of models posing nude covered in fake blood, placarding outside a well known fashion house, who had started using fur in their lines again.

 

I am contemplating starting my own line of clothing with "eye-catching" phrases relating to my causes. A constant placard for my beliefs.

 

" Do not be afraid to work in your garden. let your innate intelligence direct you out from under the compost heaped upon you. Your tears will provide the water that softens the soil and leads you to the light. You will then grow straight, tall and free from scars. Now is the right season for growth; be inspired and start toward the light. It is not as far away as it seems. Remember that a seed sees no light, but knows the right direction to grow in. The knowledge and wisdom is in you too."

 

-Bernie Siegel, "Prescriptions for Living"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you push people away by being too pushy/aggressive then what do you achieve in the end?

 

I agree 100% with MalcKiera ((is that Malcoms Billy from VF ?). I think her entire post was right on. Subtlety can be much more powerful than "in your face" tactics. Not everybody needs to be "scared," "grossed," or "guilt-tripped" into veganism.

 

About half a dozen people around me have become vegetarian/vegan over the last few years without my saying a word about it (other than answering questions when I was asked). Just leading by example, eating well and pumping iron is enough to get their attention. Most people want to feel like they arrived at a conclusion themselves, instead of having it "hammered" into them. Let them come to it slowly and gently--it's a more permanent change.

 

There ought to be different tactics for different people, but unfortunately only the loudest, most in-your-face and "pushy" activists get any media attention, making it seem like all vegans are like that all the time, and, as we know, they're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with MalcKiera ((is that Malcoms Billy from VF ?).

 

It is indeed!

 

There ought to be different tactics for different people, but unfortunately only the loudest, most in-your-face and "pushy" activists get any media attention, making it seem like all vegans are like that all the time, and, as we know, they're not.

 

Unfortunately you're totally right drummerboy. The media overall does not seem interested in facts, or reporting anything that could in any way shake up the status quo. They are interested in sales figures and if an animal rights demo that gets out of hand ups the sales figures then it gets front page - with a big picture and hardly any real report of what's going on. That seems to be the best you can get really, and it seems that many people still think that letting themselves be used by the media gives them at least a chance to reach some people. Whether this is right, and whether the amount of people you'd turn away from animal rights/veganism won't be bigger than the number of people who become interested I don't know. I guess it's one of those immeasurable things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you push people away by being too pushy/aggressive then what do you achieve in the end?

 

I agree 100% with MalcKiera ((is that Malcoms Billy from VF ?). I think her entire post was right on. Subtlety can be much more powerful than "in your face" tactics. Not everybody needs to be "scared," "grossed," or "guilt-tripped" into veganism.

 

 

Name me one person who said here or anywhere else that "everybody needs to be scared, grossed, or guilt-tripped into veganism." I think that people here have repeatedly stated that different methods work for different people, so I really dont understand the need for that comment Drummer boy.

 

And your last comment only proves that there is a place for pushy activism, and a necessary one - whether we like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think comparing animal rights to mormonism is not a helpful way to look at things. Most people, even religious people, see other people's religions as fairy tales. So if young men are out there prosletysing fairy tales, it is not surprising that their rate of conversion is limited by the amount of people prepared to believe in fairy tales.

 

Animal Rights and Veganism on the other hand are based on evidence in the actual physical world. You can point to facts to support your argument.

 

Having said which, there are times for pushiness, and times for friendliness. The Vegan Buddy scheme works best by not being pushy. We are one hundred percent vegan about things, but that doesn't put people off. This year we have been helping people with their shopping, popping around and cooking dinner a few times for new vegans, answering phone calls and enquiries from mother's who are worried about their kids going vegan. This is completely friendly, and nobody has had a word of complaint about any of it.

 

If folks don't feel that the "pushy" form of activism is for them, then they can always try taking out an advert in their local paper offering to take an aspiring vegan shopping.

 

If you want any advice on setting this kind of thing up, drop me a pm and I'll get back to you.

 

(The confusingly named Mary, who lost her log in and is now masquerading, unsuccesfully, as Frances.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...