You’re not going to convince me, you’re preaching to the choir but you messaging isn’t meeting people where they’re at and will leave us with a lonely moral victory.
Homie. If there was a magical sequence of words that made people understand that exploiting and committing violence against those who are weaker you was wrong the world would be such a better place already.
I think the only way to achieve that is slowly through better education. But even that is difficult when people distrust education.
Education is how we win, and it is slow because it has to undo the cultural normalization of meat as an identity. The meat industry has spent decades lobbying for subsidies and advertising meat as part of the American way of life.
It is really hard to fight that because once something becomes part of a person’s sense of self, attacking it engages the ego. It is the same issue with car dominance.
I think it is important to keep in mind that victory is not an all or nothing game. A lot of leftist ideals interlock with a thought structure that makes people more open to persuasion through reason.
That change comes a little bit at a time, not by one well reasoned argument, but by seeing happy, thriving communities as living proof.
As an observer side note, this exchange is a great example of moral purity meeting harm reduction stances. A moral purist doesn’t want to compromise their moral integrity, but taking a harm reduction stance means seeing that there’s no achieving the goal without making compromises. A moral purist stance thus means accepting that the general result might be even worse because of the personal refusal to bend, but on the other hand harm reduction stance means you are essentially forced to stain yourself with acting against your own morals.
Both sides here thrive for a world where no animals needs to be eaten, but the way to get there is seen differently. Who is right depends entirely on do you see having absolute moral values or focusing on the practical results more important
At the same time that “little bit at a time” change can 100% come from a well reasoned argument, the first step i took was to cut out beef since it’s by far the worst food for the climate and it really isn’t difficult to stop eating it (both pork and chicken are readily available and tasty, so it’s basically just a matter of checking ingredient lists for stuff like meatballs and sausages).
I think the key thing is just that people have to be presented with an immediate action they can take that isn’t some huge sacrifice, and ideally actually benefits them in some way.
Like to make people drive less: Maybe ask them if they’ve considered that an electric moped would be MUCH cheaper to operate, way easier to find parking for at work, and means that a person at home can still have access to the car. That’s very reasonable for a lot of people and might well lead to them ditching the car entirely.
You’re not going to convince me, you’re preaching to the choir but you messaging isn’t meeting people where they’re at and will leave us with a lonely moral victory.
Homie. If there was a magical sequence of words that made people understand that exploiting and committing violence against those who are weaker you was wrong the world would be such a better place already.
I think the only way to achieve that is slowly through better education. But even that is difficult when people distrust education.
Education is how we win, and it is slow because it has to undo the cultural normalization of meat as an identity. The meat industry has spent decades lobbying for subsidies and advertising meat as part of the American way of life.
It is really hard to fight that because once something becomes part of a person’s sense of self, attacking it engages the ego. It is the same issue with car dominance.
I think it is important to keep in mind that victory is not an all or nothing game. A lot of leftist ideals interlock with a thought structure that makes people more open to persuasion through reason.
That change comes a little bit at a time, not by one well reasoned argument, but by seeing happy, thriving communities as living proof.
Indeed. Great username btw.
As an observer side note, this exchange is a great example of moral purity meeting harm reduction stances. A moral purist doesn’t want to compromise their moral integrity, but taking a harm reduction stance means seeing that there’s no achieving the goal without making compromises. A moral purist stance thus means accepting that the general result might be even worse because of the personal refusal to bend, but on the other hand harm reduction stance means you are essentially forced to stain yourself with acting against your own morals.
Both sides here thrive for a world where no animals needs to be eaten, but the way to get there is seen differently. Who is right depends entirely on do you see having absolute moral values or focusing on the practical results more important
At the same time that “little bit at a time” change can 100% come from a well reasoned argument, the first step i took was to cut out beef since it’s by far the worst food for the climate and it really isn’t difficult to stop eating it (both pork and chicken are readily available and tasty, so it’s basically just a matter of checking ingredient lists for stuff like meatballs and sausages).
I think the key thing is just that people have to be presented with an immediate action they can take that isn’t some huge sacrifice, and ideally actually benefits them in some way.
Like to make people drive less: Maybe ask them if they’ve considered that an electric moped would be MUCH cheaper to operate, way easier to find parking for at work, and means that a person at home can still have access to the car. That’s very reasonable for a lot of people and might well lead to them ditching the car entirely.