archive-com.com » COM » A » ABOLITIONISTAPPROACH.COM

Total: 223

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • "Selfie Morality": The Moral Rot of the Animal Movement - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    have a reasoned moral position in favor of veganism as a moral baseline of being cultists Think about that The defining characteristic of a cult is forbidding rational thought So who is being a cultist the person who has a rationally defensible position or the person whose only argument is in effect You disagree with me You are being violent You are shaming me I am on a journey Another manifestation of selfie morality Anyone who disagrees with me or does not acknowledge that I am awesome and important is a bigot of some sort Once again we don t look at the position being advanced It s all about the speaker and anything that is not liked by the speaker must be wrong People are classified as morally good or morally bad based on the whims of the speaker That is completely narcissistic Selfie morality is the moral rot of the animal movement If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself If animals matter morally veganism is not an option it is a necessity Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative The World is Vegan If you want it Learn more about veganism at www HowDoIGoVegan com Gary L Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Rutgers University 2015 Gary L Francione Related posts Moral Concern Moral Impulse and Logical Argument in Animal Rights Advocacy Animal Rights Marginalized By The Animal Movement Sexism and Racism in the Animal Movement A Reply to Ruby Hamad Elephants They May Weigh More Than Chickens But Not as a Matter of Morality A Movement of

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/selfie-morality-the-moral-rot-of-the-animal-movement/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • There Is No Third Choice - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    moral personhood of nonhumans we would undoubtedly devise better ways of avoiding even incidental and unintended deaths of animals in the crop production process But there is a very significant difference between X being murdered and X dying in a traffic accident We all recognize that but the welfarists seem to have trouble applying that in the animal context And that is deeply speciesist The welfarists always talk about our going vegan as a matter of being on a journey The moment you buy into the welfarist idea that it s morally acceptable to not be vegan as long as you are on a journey you ve bought into speciesism We would never say talk about journeys and baby steps where fundamental human rights were involved We would never say for example that if someone is a racist we ought to encourage that person to take baby steps and just be a more gentle racist because that person is on a journey With respect to fundamental human rights we are clear When it comes to the victimization of nonhuman animals it s all a matter of journeys baby steps and moral relativism And that is deeply speciesist Of course the world is not going to go vegan overnight But those of us who believe in animal rights have an obligation to make crystal clear that veganism is a moral imperative that we have an obligation to go vegan and nothing less will satisfy our moral obligation to animals Those who hear and who care may choose to do less i e they may choose to eat cage free eggs or crate free pork or reduce their intake of meat etc But that should be their choice and never what we promote as an advocacy matter The world will never go vegan as long as animal people don t promote it as a moral baseline And if each of us who is now vegan persuaded only one other person to go vegan in the next year and that repeated itself for a dozen years or so the world would be vegan That isn t going to happen but if we all made that our goal we would at least achieve progress The happy exploitation movement that now exists is only pushing things backward If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself If animals matter morally veganism is not an option it is a necessity Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative The World is Vegan If you want it Learn more about veganism at www HowDoIGoVegan com Gary L Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Rutgers University Anna Charlton Adjunct Professor of Law Rutgers University 2015 Gary L Francione Anna Charlton Related posts Our Choice Journeys Into Speciesism Monday Your Choice Commentary

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/there-is-no-third-choice/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • An Open Request to PETA, Farm Sanctuary, Viva!, and Others - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    and support for the pioneering Whole Foods standards of animal exploitation as you did Why don t you just withdraw the support of Viva from the endorsement of the happy exploitation program that you provided and admit it was a bad idea for you to do that and for you to sit down with industry to formulate standards for the exploitation of animals Isn t that the very least that you owe to the animals As for these comments about Rutgers I am delighted to say that there are more vegans every year and more vegan food on campus every year Rutgers does animal experimentation quite a bit of it and I am sure that everyone knows and appreciates that a faculty member in one part of the University does not get to shut down departments in other parts of the University Similarly the vivisection community is unable to stop my teaching and writing about why vivisection is morally unjustified and scientifically unsound although they are as unhappy with me as I am with them Let me add that at Rutgers as everywhere else the efforts of those of us who promote veganism could be far more effective if there were not groups like Viva that are telling everyone that it s fine for them to do less than go vegan You endorse reducetarianism on every page of your website On every page of your website you reinforce the idea that meat is different from other animal products You sell cookbooks that have non vegan recipes You tell people that eating foie gras is somehow different from eating other animal foods or that it s worse to use the flesh of kangaroos to make shoes than the flesh of cows You have made a business of selling excuses to people so they can continue to exploit animals That s clear Gary Francione P S I am still waiting for you to give me the support for your statement at VegfestUK about welfare reform leading to reduced numbers of animals being killed I have asked for that at least three times Thanks ADDENDUM More from Viva Tony Wardle of Viva sticks his foot further down his throat Click to enlarge My reply Tony Viva is promoting animal exploitation In fact Viva sat down with the meat industry and helped to formulate actual standards of exploitation You got called on it You have no reply because there is no reply So you behave like a pugilistic school child I am sorry you feel compelled to do so As for your supposed skills as an investigative journalist I am not a governor of Rutgers University I am a Board of Governors Professor That s just the title of the academic position I have I do not hold and have never held any administrative position at Rutgers I have however turned generations of students on to animal rights and the vegan philosophy and we now have many more vegan options It s hard when

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/an-open-request-to-peta-farm-sanctuary-viva-and-others/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Lot of People Are Angry with Me-and They are Right - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    out there I firmly believe that many if not most people already embrace moral ideas that can lead them to veganism It is the large groups telling people that they can consume with compassion that is the problem and not the supposedly limited intelligence of ordinary people Ordinary people are not the problem Animal people are the problem They are angry that I reject their single issue campaigns as necessarily promoting animal exploitation They are right Such campaigns necessarily promote the idea that those animal products that are not being targeted are morally acceptable to consume and thereby perpetuate exploitation and speciesist ideology For example a campaign to oppose foie gras necessarily promotes the idea to the public that foie gras is worse than other animal products and that those other products are morally acceptable to consume If this was not the message of the campaign it would not receive support or donations from people who oppose foie gras but who think that eating animal products is otherwise fine They are angry that I maintain that we don t need these large animal charities and that we instead need to build a grassroots movement of people without donate buttons They are right A shift in the paradigm from animal property to animal personhood is never going to happen unless and until we have a movement of people who are not dependent on donations and who are not subject to the perverse incentives that thereby result and who are working in their communities to educate their neighbors friends and relatives about veganism as a moral imperative The late Nelson Mandela said Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world Grassroots education does not require bloated organizations CEOs or Executive Directors or donate buttons It requires individuals with commitment As Margaret Mead once observed Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world indeed it s the only thing that ever has They are angry that I link animal rights and human rights They are right I have done so since I first began my work in the animal movement in the 1980s We otherize humans and nonhumans and this permits us to violate the fundamental rights of all We need to reject otherization altogether I recognize that this is not a good idea for those who do fundraising because they want to get donations from people who are racist sexist homophobic anti Semitic Islamophobic etc But that s a pathetic reason to reject the clear connection between human and nonhuman rights They are angry that there is a grassroots Abolitionist movement emerging all over the world They are right The Abolitionist Movement is spreading And that is precisely why they all spend so much time trying to suppress the ideas expressed here and on my websites or reinterpret abolition as allowing for welfare reform single issue campaigns reducetarianism and all of the other sell out approaches that they sell or

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-lot-of-people-are-angry-with-me-and-they-are-right/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Problem: "Animal Advocates" Who Promote Animal Exploitation - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    its North American egg supply chain and calls McDonald s praiseworthy That statement is breathtaking Here s a screenshot of the MFA statement in case you simply cannot believe that animal advocates would applaud animal exploitation Notice that in addition to applaud ing the McDonald s cage free egg announcement MFA tells its supporters to ask McDonald s to continue it s praiseworthy progress by adopting meaningful standards for chickens killed for Chicken McNuggets And that s the problem Supporting these groups is supporting animal exploitation just as much as consuming a McDonald s animal product is If animals matter morally then we are obligated morally to embrace and promote veganism as a moral imperative and we are equally obligated to oppose the speciesist idea that imposing suffering and death on animals can ever be praiseworthy If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself If animals matter morally veganism is not an option it is a necessity Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative The World is Vegan If you want it Learn more about veganism at www HowDoIGoVegan com Gary L Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Rutgers University 2015 Gary L Francione Related posts Animal Exploitation Brought to You by Animal Advocates Some Animal Advocates Never Miss An Opportunity to Exploit Animal Exploitation Enabling Animal Exploitation Commentary 9 Using Sexism to Promote Animal Rights Animal Welfare Regulation Happy Exploitation and Speciesism Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Share on Vk Share on Reddit Share

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-problem-animal-advocates-who-promote-animal-exploitation/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Movement That Moves Backward - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    taking the position that animal exploitation however humane is itself morally wrong The movement has rejected veganism as a moral baseline The only difference between now and say the movement in 1940 is that in 1940 there were few if any people making a living from being animal activists Now there are thousands making a living off the back of animal suffering and death as they peddle the insidious notion of happy or compassionate exploitation It s going backward If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself If animals matter morally veganism is not an option it is a necessity Anything that claims to be an animal rights movement must make clear that veganism is a moral imperative The World is Vegan If you want it Learn more about veganism at www HowDoIGoVegan com Gary L Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Rutgers University 2015 Gary L Francione Related posts Commentary 18 A Step Backward the Importance of Veganism and the Misuse of Abolition A Movement of Relentless Narcissism Veganism The Fundamental Principle of the Abolitionist Movement Animal Rights Marginalized By The Animal Movement Selfie Morality The Moral Rot of the Animal Movement Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Share on Vk Share on Reddit Share by Mail Français Visitez notre site miroir français Recent Posts Guest Essay This is Why New Welfarists Should Stop Equivocating on Moral Principles Concerning Animals A Response to Mercy For Animals Incremental Reform in the Human Context Is Not Analogous to Welfare Reform and Single Issue Campaigns in the Nonhuman Context

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-movement-that-moves-backward/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • McDonald's "Cage-Free" Eggs, Peter McSinger and the McAnimal Movement - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    when humans die And it s also no news that Singer explicitly rejects veganism as a moral baseline denigrating consistent veganism as fanatical and as a matter of being personally pure He talks about the luxury of eating animal products and calls himself a flexible vegan claiming that there s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they re going out to a fancy restaurant they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening I don t see anything really wrong with that I ve been a vegetarian since 1971 I ve gradually become increasingly vegan I am largely vegan but I m a flexible vegan I don t go to the supermarket and buy non vegan stuff for myself But when I m traveling or going to other people s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan So Singer has no problem with eating eggs and other animal products And in another ten years he will be able to stop in at McDonald s and enjoy one of their cage free egg products with victory in every delicious bite But surely even he must see that what McDonald s is doing has nothing to do with animal ethics It has to do with corporate profitability McDonald s is experiencing falling market share Customers are demanding that McDonald s serve breakfast foods all day long And analysts see the cage free announcement as allowing McDonald s to do an all day breakfast menu for which it can charge higher prices because of the better eggs that McDonald s will phase in over the next decade From a business point of view the move by McDonald s is brilliant They not only get to increase profits but they get the animal movement from Father Singer to reactionary welfarist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and Mercy for Animals to provide free advertising and tons and tons of praise Indeed these so called animal advocates are declaring this to be a watershed moment McDonald s actually has these animal advocates reassuring the public that it s just fine for people to continue to consume animals It s also great for the animal groups who are as we write undoubtedly raising tons of cash as they join Singer in declaring victory and as they all claim credit But what about the birds What about the birds who will still be confined in massive sheds with no room to move What about the birds who will still be debeaked and tortured in other ways from their birth to their deaths in the hideous abattoirs that slaughter chickens What about the male chicks who will still be killed at birth in the hatcheries All of this will continue but with the animal movement providing its stamp of approval Unfortunately the birds are just tools to both the

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/mcdonalds-cage-free-eggs-peter-mcsinger-and-the-mcanimal-movement/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Direct Action Everywhere (DxE): Vegan Advocacy is "Harmful to the Animal Rights Movement" - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    all discrimination a point that Watson did not discuss explicitly The Vegan Society which Watson helped to found has certainly gone in the direction of promoting veganism as a consumerist lifestyle And I have openly and repeatedly criticized them for abandoning Watson s progressive vision in favor of promoting the idea that veganism is about consuming products that the Vegan Society trademark Indeed if Donald Watson were still alive he would be absolutely horrified at what the Vegan Society has become But it is beyond absurd to say that Watson s position was merely personal or consumerist and that Watson did not see veganism as a political act and as part of a political movement that embraced nonviolence Watson regarded the vegan movement as the greatest movement that ever was because it provided a solution to the crisis of greed and violence that affected and afflicted humankind and that threatened ecological disaster When I challenged Hsiung on his position on Watson on Bob Linden s show he stated that he really thought highly of Watson and that if we could create 100 000 Donald Watsons we could change the world overnight This is puzzling Why would Hsiung want 100 000 Donald Watsons if he believes that vegan advocacy is harmful And if we did magically end up with 100 000 Donald Watsons who promoted veganism they would be told to not promote veganism but instead to promote activism This makes no sense In any event and putting aside that in many respects the personal political distinction is illusory it is clear that adopting veganism as a moral imperative is not merely a matter of personal choice or consumer lifestyle It is a political decision by the individual to reject the victimization of the vulnerable and the commodification of nonhuman animals that is pervasive in our society It is a commitment by the individual to stop contributing to the demand that makes institutionalized animal exploitation possible It is a commitment to the most fundamental prerequisite for justice for nonhuman animals And advocating veganism as a moral imperative is certainly activism To say that someone advocating veganism as a moral baseline is simply seeking to get people to adopt a particular consumer lifestyle is ludicrous Are there people who do view veganism merely as a matter of consumer lifestyle and personal choice There certainly are The large animal charities which as I explain below Hsiung actively supports accept the status of animals as economic commodities and just demand a better product They do not promote veganism as any sort of moral imperative But Watson didn t look at it that way and abolitionists as I use that term certainly do not Why would DxE take the position that veganism either as the decision of the individual and as a matter of social advocacy and education is not activism I had an opportunity to discuss this and other issues with Hsiung when Bob Linden invited me to talk with Hsiung on Go Vegan Radio In response to my question about why vegan advocacy was not activism Hsiung used the following hypothetical Let s assume we come upon a child being beaten by a mob How should we respond We can say that we disapprove and refuse to participate Or we can take action to help the child Wayne believes that the first response non participation is analogous to the vegan response and the second response disruption of the activity is analogous to the DxE activist response He concludes that since the first reaction is inadequate morally because we are obligated to act to stop the beating of the child veganism fails This analogy shows clearly that Hsiung fails to understand the nature of animal exploitation For the analogy to work the bystanders would have to be paying the mob to beat the child The mob would not be beating the child if the bystanders did not pay them to do so That is how animal exploitation works The mob of exploiters is killing animals because the bystanders are demanding that they do so and paying them to do it When we change the hypothetical so that it is analogous to what goes on with animal exploitation the only appropriate response is for the bystanders to say to the mob stop that we will not pay you to beat the child The only way that can stop the producers from killing animals is to stop demanding that they do so And that is exactly what vegan advocacy aims to do Once we understand how animal exploitation works and it s not rocket science we see that Hsiung s comments about veganism vegan advocacy as not being activism are just silly Indeed Hsiung is telling people not to demand the end of the exploitation that they are demanding This makes no sense Vegan Advocacy is Harmful DxE claims not only that veganism and vegan advocacy do not involve activism but that vegan advocacy is harmful When I first saw this claim by DxErs I thought they were making the same point that Singer and other utilitarians make that promoting veganism as a moral imperative is harmful as a contingent matter because it may turn people away from being vegan because they may think it is too difficult But Hsiung and DxE go further they think that promoting veganism is inherently harmful And why do the DxErs think that Hsiung explained on the Bob Linden show that veganism advocacy is like the free produce movement of the 19th century that promoted a boycott on products made by slaves as a way of ending slavery Hsiung claimed that some abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison criticized that approach as ineffective and as counterproductive Again Hsiung s use of this analogy again shows he does not understand the nature of animal exploitation The free produce movement sought a boycott of products made by slaves With animal exploitation the animals are the products Vegan advocacy is not promoting a boycott of products made by animals it is actively rejecting the status of animals as commodities It is rejecting the status of animals as property To the extent that some abolitionists rejected the Free Produce Movement it was because they thought it was ineffective relative to other things that would it was argued bring about abolition more quickly They claimed that the Free Produce Movement did not attack slavery directly Abolitionist veganism is a direct attack on animal slavery Indeed the very first first principle of the Abolitionist Approach is that nonhumans have a moral right not to be used as property The second principle is that we must abolish and not merely regulate animal use The third principle is that abolition requires veganism both as an individual and social matter A movement that promotes veganism as a moral baseline is without doubt the most effective tool for ending animal exploitation If every vegan persuaded one other person to go vegan in the next year and this pattern were repeated every year by the prior group of vegans and the new group of vegans the world would be vegan in about a decade Now we all know that is not going to happen but if all animal advocates embraced veganism as a moral imperative and educated themselves so that they could educate others effectively we would certainly get closer to abolition in a decade than we will doing anything else Hsiung claims that if someone chooses to go vegan it has no effect on reducing demand That s correct but again Hsiung misses the point The Abolitionist Movement is seeking to inspire collective action to build a movement of millions who reject the exploitation of animals and who want to bring about the end of animal exploitation And the only way to end animal slavery is to end the use of animals as commodities And the only way to end the use of animals as commodities is by individuals no longer eating wearing or using animals and acting collectively with others to persuade others to do the same as a matter of a moral imperative Moreover Hsiung s criticism that the individual decision to embrace veganism as a moral baseline does not reduce overall demand or do anything to effect any change as far as animals are concerned can be said about anything that anyone including the DxErs proposes as an alternative For example one of the DxErs a DxE blogger and organizer named Kelly has this advice So stop talking about veganism Stop talking about vegan products Stop talking about individual humans Talk about speciesism Talk about the animals Talk about culture And shout about atrocity Assuming there is any substantive content to whatever Kelly thinks that people should be doing here it is rather clear that one person talking about animals culture and speciesism and shouting about atrocity is not going to amount to a very big hill of beans Moreover when Kelly has these discussions with people and they respond by saying hey Kelly that s really interesting what can I do to make a difference Kelly won t tell them that they should stop participating in animal exploitation and go vegan Rather she will tell them to talk to others about animals speciesism and culture And she will tell them to shout about atrocity But she won t mention veganism because that isn t activism That s harmful This makes no sense In any event Hsiung and all the DxErs misrepresent the vegan abolitionist movement and claim it is not about collective action it is only about consumer lifestyles and promoting vegan options at non vegan resturants That is simply and unequivocally false Those who embrace veganism as a moral baseline embrace the idea that animal exploitation is unjust They are shouting about the atrocity of animal exploitation But they are offering a strategy for ending animal exploitation in the most direct and effective way by getting people to reject the status of animals as resources for humans and educating others about the need to do so A point I made above and that will be discussed further below bears repeating here there are animal advocates who reject veganism as a moral baseline and who embrace welfarist veganism the idea that veganism is just one of many ways of reducing animal suffering along with larger cages and happy animal products These animal advocates do portray veganism as a matter of consumerism and get all excited about vegan options offered at fast food chains And it is precisely those groups that Hsiung and DxE works with and supports So DxE rejects advocating veganism as a moral baseline as a fundamental principle of justice because it is according to DxE consumerist but embraces welfarist groups that reject veganism as a moral imperative and that characterize veganism in a completely consumerist manner as one way of reducing suffering through consumer choice along with all sorts of happy exploitation This makes no sense Indeed it makes your head hurt even to try to grasp this nonsense But nonsense and nothing more is exactly what it is What Does DxE Consider as Non Harmful Activism DxE thinks that vegan advocacy is not activism and is harmful So what does DxE regard as productive activism Well they promote chanting it s not food it s violence or until all are free or whatever it is the DxErs chant at Chipotle restaurants as bemused patrons look at them the way they would someone singing whistling or talking to themselves Here s another example of DxE direct action entitled Disrupting Speciesism at Chipotle You can just see how engaged the patrons of Chipotle are with this direct action And if someone at one of these DxE protests should ask one of the DxErs what to do to as a practical matter they won t be advised to go vegan and promote veganism to others they ll be advised to become activists This makes no sense Hsiung and the DxErs have no problem with nonvegans participating in these activist events So nonvegans are welcome to come and chant slogans at other nonvegans This makes no sense DxE claims that t o change the institutions that hurt animals we need to create millions of water cooler conversations about animal rights around the world For Hsiung and his DxErs a non vegan water cooler conversation about animal rights is activism but the same conversation around the same water cooler that links animal rights with veganism as moral imperative is harmful This makes no sense Hsiung explains that We don t need to convince 100 of the public to go vegan We need to inspire those who are already vegan to take action Okay so we need vegans to be activists but we don t need them to advocate for veganism we just need them to be activists who don t advocate for veganism because veganism is harmful This makes no sense DxE also promotes open rescue going into facilities and rescuing individual chickens Given that we are killing billions of animals that s not a very sound strategy for change particularly given that every chicken rescued will be replaced by another victim Sure it may save some lives and that is a good thing But saving lives can be done by anyone who goes to a shelter and rescues one of the thousands of animals who are killed every day and who will not be replaced as part of a production cycle in the same way that a hen rescued from a battery will be The latter may not lend itself to dramatic staged videos accompanied by requests for donations but it does save lives In any event the idea that rescuing chickens is any substitute for vegan advocacy is absurd The idea may appeal to people who are so eager to do something that they can t realize that Hsiung makes no sense but that strategy cannot and will not end animal use Another example of DxE activism disrupting a speech by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and calling him on his veto of legislation banning the gestation crate DxE also engages in single issue campaigns in solidarity with all of the new welfarist groups that promote the counterproductive idea that some animal products are worse than others and protest foie gras They protest the Ringling Brothers circus along with PETA Hey wait a second How do all of these sorts of activism differ from what other new welfarist groups do The answer they don t DxE is just another new welfarist group with the addition of street theater matching t shirts candle holding and Hsiung claiming that social science research proves that the DxE approach is scientifically sound Click to enlarge It s interesting and not just a little ironic that a group that claims to distance itself from the consumerist lifestyle is so relentlessly into branding Slogans like It s not food it s violence and Until all are free are just more of the incoherent nonsense that we hear from all the new welfarist groups No message of veganism No normative direction of what people can do to make a difference Just slogans and the same very tired single issue campaigns that the new welfarists have been promoting forever DxE claims to reject welfare reform at the same time that Hsiung says that welfare reforms are necessary but they should be sustainable and part of a long term movement strategy There isn t a single new welfarist group that would disagree with that statement This makes no sense DxE claims to reject animal use but embraces Peter Singer s welfarist animal liberation approach When I asked Hsiung about this on Bob Linden s show he responded by saying that DxE accepts what Singer s position was in 1976 when he wrote Animal Liberation Apparently Hsiung thinks that Singer s position then was more radical than it is now That assumption is incorrect Singer has always rejected animal rights He has never promoted veganism as a moral imperative Indeed in 1976 Singer explicitly rejected moral rights and maintained that animals are not self aware and do not have an interest in continuing to live Singer rejected the position that animal use is per se morally objectionable This makes no sense Hsiung claims that he opposes animal welfare but stated that he wanted DxE to help the work of new welfarist Bruce Friedrich be more effective First if our goal is network building it is absolutely vital to emphasize that our model of activism building a movement for nonviolent direct action complements many of the strategies taken by other groups If we are successful as I fully expect we will be our activism will make the lobbying outreach and education that Bruce does exponentially more effective Indeed in many ways that is the entire point of nonviolent direct action to create so much energy behind an issue that less assertive methods can finally sink in the way they should This makes no sense Although the other groups talk out of all sides of their fundraising mouths to make sure they keep the donor pool as broad as possible PETA complains about Whole Foods at the same time it embraces the Whole Foods happy exploitation program and the happy exploitation of other exploiters DxE takes the animal confusion movement to new heights Some people think DxE does not solicit donations In the beginning they did not But that changed pretty quickly Click to enlarge And they don t pay salaries to people so that there are yet more careerist animal activists out there No They seek donations to pay activist stipends DxE boasts that Writer James McWilliams tells us we re doing today s most compelling animal activist work That s the very same James McWilliams who has become captain of the cheerleading squad for HSUS and other welfarist groups and who condemns vegans who promote

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/direct-action-everywhere-dxe-vegan-advocacy-is-harmful-to-the-animal-rights-movement/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive



  •