What are you calling effective? You have an increasing population. You have a rise of meat-eating car-driving right-wing nutters voting fascists into power. What do you expect? The fact that we can walk into a restaurant and ask for a vegan menu proves positive effect occured. The fact that even prisoners can specify that they are vegan and get a vegan meal while incarcerated shows it was effective.
To be clear, “effective” does not mean “mission complete”. Abolition of slavery was very effective. That does not mean slavery is entirely eradicated. The fight against slavery will likely continue throughout our lifetime.
(edit) I suspect if you find a chart for the numbers of vegans, that will also be increasing.
this reads like cope. make any excuse you want, but if you want to save animals from the livestock industry, you’re going to need to choose an effective method.
There is no single magic bullet. An effective method is not a singular tactic or event against a complex problem. You need many effective methods and campaigns, one of which is vegans doing their individual boycott. Slavery reduced over many generations. It cannot even be solved in a single generation. As Rutger Bregman states, it often takes one generation just to work on awareness and influence before the execution of actions. Only 1 of major initiating actors in abolition of slavery lived to actually see it fall. IIRC, it was the same for the suffragettes. Only one of the key players in the fight for women’s rights lived to see the day when a notable stride was made.
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.
Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf.
so you should try to think about your methods and whether they’re effective. if you wouldn’t just hold your breath, it’s probably because you’re smart enough to recognize there is no causal link between your respiratory function and the animal agriculture industry. the same is true of your shopping habits.
There is a causal link. Patronisation feeds money (or profitable data) to the oppressor. There is no reasonable question that patrons increase revenue. There is no reasonable question that revenue supports a company’s operations.
You’re also missing the other point that I made. Reducing the adversary’s revenue is not the only effect. It’s a training exercise. Boycotting puts you into a disciplined lifestyle that enables you to study how the infra works without the oppressor. You see what patrons do not. You support alternative markets and competitors. It enables identification of problems with the alternate path, thus enabling corrective actions.
By refusing to send email to a Microsoft recipient, I consequently support the postal service (which is under threat by email). Support for the postal service is more important than MS’s loss of my profitable data. If the recipient does not publish a physical address and it’s a gov agency, I make an open data demand to force them to publish it, ultimately to enable compeition with MS. The recipient is also burdened by having to deal with paper mail. That burden serves as pressure to use a less controversial email supplier.
but depriving them of that in a disorganized way doesn’t actually cause them to change their methods.
Nonsense. That’s not how business works. A disorganized boycott lacks an express list of demands. That does not mean the oppressor does not know what drives the boycott. If they know what the issue is, the business case wins.
More importantly, as explained in detail, behavior modification is not the only goal. I have no demands for Microsoft. MS is unredeemable. There is nothing they can change to reverse my boycott. The boycott ensures that MS gains no revenue from me. MS loses the empowerment of the capital they would otherwise acquire from my patronage. I am free from serving as an enabler. I force other people to feed Microsoft’s competitors. If they want to talk to me, they cannot use outlook.com.
What are you calling effective? You have an increasing population. You have a rise of meat-eating car-driving right-wing nutters voting fascists into power. What do you expect? The fact that we can walk into a restaurant and ask for a vegan menu proves positive effect occured. The fact that even prisoners can specify that they are vegan and get a vegan meal while incarcerated shows it was effective.
To be clear, “effective” does not mean “mission complete”. Abolition of slavery was very effective. That does not mean slavery is entirely eradicated. The fight against slavery will likely continue throughout our lifetime.
(edit) I suspect if you find a chart for the numbers of vegans, that will also be increasing.
this reads like cope. make any excuse you want, but if you want to save animals from the livestock industry, you’re going to need to choose an effective method.
There is no single magic bullet. An effective method is not a singular tactic or event against a complex problem. You need many effective methods and campaigns, one of which is vegans doing their individual boycott. Slavery reduced over many generations. It cannot even be solved in a single generation. As Rutger Bregman states, it often takes one generation just to work on awareness and influence before the execution of actions. Only 1 of major initiating actors in abolition of slavery lived to actually see it fall. IIRC, it was the same for the suffragettes. Only one of the key players in the fight for women’s rights lived to see the day when a notable stride was made.
there are more slaves now than ever.
That counters Rutger Bregman’s research. Citation needed.
well estimates vary, but as recently as 2009, one estimate was over 29 million people. i’d love to see bregman’s research if you can provide it.
https://www.bbc.com/audio/brand/m002mqm3
this is useless. do you have a transcript?
https://www.baeldung.com/linux/wav-mp3-to-text-speech-recognize
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.
Nonsense w.r.t to abolition of slavery. The most significant work was done by white outsiders. Source: https://www.bbc.com/audio/brand/m002mqm3
if i told you holding your breath was helpful, i doubt you would even try that before focusing on more effective methods.
And?
so you should try to think about your methods and whether they’re effective. if you wouldn’t just hold your breath, it’s probably because you’re smart enough to recognize there is no causal link between your respiratory function and the animal agriculture industry. the same is true of your shopping habits.
There is a causal link. Patronisation feeds money (or profitable data) to the oppressor. There is no reasonable question that patrons increase revenue. There is no reasonable question that revenue supports a company’s operations.
You’re also missing the other point that I made. Reducing the adversary’s revenue is not the only effect. It’s a training exercise. Boycotting puts you into a disciplined lifestyle that enables you to study how the infra works without the oppressor. You see what patrons do not. You support alternative markets and competitors. It enables identification of problems with the alternate path, thus enabling corrective actions.
By refusing to send email to a Microsoft recipient, I consequently support the postal service (which is under threat by email). Support for the postal service is more important than MS’s loss of my profitable data. If the recipient does not publish a physical address and it’s a gov agency, I make an open data demand to force them to publish it, ultimately to enable compeition with MS. The recipient is also burdened by having to deal with paper mail. That burden serves as pressure to use a less controversial email supplier.
no. i read it.
but depriving them of that in a disorganized way doesn’t actually cause them to change their methods.
Nonsense. That’s not how business works. A disorganized boycott lacks an express list of demands. That does not mean the oppressor does not know what drives the boycott. If they know what the issue is, the business case wins.
More importantly, as explained in detail, behavior modification is not the only goal. I have no demands for Microsoft. MS is unredeemable. There is nothing they can change to reverse my boycott. The boycott ensures that MS gains no revenue from me. MS loses the empowerment of the capital they would otherwise acquire from my patronage. I am free from serving as an enabler. I force other people to feed Microsoft’s competitors. If they want to talk to me, they cannot use outlook.com.