You could reduce meat intake and buy higher quality meat whenever financially feasible. Then you help fight the problem but can still look down on vegans
You will get more people to join your cause with a positive message: i.g. “Do these small steps to start” than a negative one, I.g. “If you don’t go fully vegan, you are still part of the problem.”
“Perfect is the enemy of good.”
So it is easier to convince people to reduce meat consumption, which than makes it more likely that people will go vegetarian or vegan later
And i actually feel like vegans on the internet can be too aggressive, alienating people they could get on their side
Let’s assume you talk to someone from a first world country. It is aggressive to say your lifestyle is responsible for the death of children in the developmental world, you are indirectly a murderer
It is more helpful to say: try fair-trade chlothes and check for companies that you buy from
Or vegans can just mind their own business and leave the rest alone. Claiming abuse and murder and yet still buy smartphones whose materials are sourced by abuse of the poor, drive around on liquefied animals and use plastics.
Which is fair enough and I can respect that. But I have no respect for assholes who think they are better than the rest and keep calling everyone murderer and animal abuser while they claim they can undo 100k+ years of evolution in a single life-time and hypocritically rely on modern medicine to keep them healthy.
Put simply, promoting veganism won’t stop people from reducing, but promoting reducetarianism will stop people from going vegan
This is either brain rot written by someone who doesn’t understand propaganda or a psy-op and I can’t tell which. So if it is a psy-op, congratulations on making an effective one.
Every doctor I’ve ever seen talk about diet, says that we should reduce our meat intake. They never suggest nor imply that people should go vegan as an alternative.
At least, from my limited experience.
I would argue that if someone has no intention of giving up meat, of which, there are plenty of people who are in that situation, then reduction can help improve the situation.
If someone is considering, or at least would consider going vegan, then veganism is the right choice, reduction may make the transition more difficult in the long term.
Thoughts? I’m happy to discuss. I just don’t have the time right this second to do a ton of reading/watching content about the other side of this discussion, so I’d like to know what you have to say.
reduction may make the transition more difficult in the long term.
This is the only part that isn’t obviously true. Of course, this is a question of fact to be decided by evidence, but here’s my speculation:
Given the size of the population, it’s clear that there will be some people who fall in either direction. Some people will find a gradual transition easier, some will be hindered by the possibility. I’m inclined to believe that it’d make things easier for more people than harder, but I have no basis of evidence to make that claim. It occurs to me that a general push to reduce meat consumption will also likely move the Overton window towards veganism, which would make large-scale vegan goals easier to achieve.
Generally, when society at large is as far removed from a position as it is with veganism, advocating for a half-measure will tend to help the cause rather than hurt it. Veganism requires changing the minds of the entire world, and getting people acclimated to the idea that we eat too much meat will likely help with that.
LMK if I wasn’t able to answer your question, or if you want to ask another one.
You could reduce meat intake and buy higher quality meat whenever financially feasible. Then you help fight the problem but can still look down on vegans
Or you could just not support abuse and murder. Also an option.
You will get more people to join your cause with a positive message: i.g. “Do these small steps to start” than a negative one, I.g. “If you don’t go fully vegan, you are still part of the problem.”
“Perfect is the enemy of good.”
So it is easier to convince people to reduce meat consumption, which than makes it more likely that people will go vegetarian or vegan later
And i actually feel like vegans on the internet can be too aggressive, alienating people they could get on their side
If you feel facts are “aggressive”, the problem is you, not the facts.
Of course facts can be aggressive
Let’s assume you talk to someone from a first world country. It is aggressive to say your lifestyle is responsible for the death of children in the developmental world, you are indirectly a murderer
It is more helpful to say: try fair-trade chlothes and check for companies that you buy from
Dividing society does not help better it
Or vegans can just mind their own business and leave the rest alone. Claiming abuse and murder and yet still buy smartphones whose materials are sourced by abuse of the poor, drive around on liquefied animals and use plastics.
Vegans don’t see themselves as perfect. It’s all about doing the best you can, where you can
Which is fair enough and I can respect that. But I have no respect for assholes who think they are better than the rest and keep calling everyone murderer and animal abuser while they claim they can undo 100k+ years of evolution in a single life-time and hypocritically rely on modern medicine to keep them healthy.
Just because some vegans are being assholes doesn’t mean you should be an asshole to everyone else and ignore the problem.
Small incremental changes are easier to make than big ones. It is also better to have many people reducing meat than just a few full vegans.
True, but my point still stands. Most people don’t go vegan overnight.
If your goal when choosing what to eat is “look down on vegans”, then you have a really shitty way of choosing what to eat.
Bruh,
If getting made fun of helps reduce the amount of meat that gets eaten, this seems very much like a good deal to me
https://www.surgeactivism.org/reducetarianism
This is either brain rot written by someone who doesn’t understand propaganda or a psy-op and I can’t tell which. So if it is a psy-op, congratulations on making an effective one.
Every doctor I’ve ever seen talk about diet, says that we should reduce our meat intake. They never suggest nor imply that people should go vegan as an alternative.
At least, from my limited experience.
I would argue that if someone has no intention of giving up meat, of which, there are plenty of people who are in that situation, then reduction can help improve the situation.
If someone is considering, or at least would consider going vegan, then veganism is the right choice, reduction may make the transition more difficult in the long term.
Thoughts? I’m happy to discuss. I just don’t have the time right this second to do a ton of reading/watching content about the other side of this discussion, so I’d like to know what you have to say.
This is the only part that isn’t obviously true. Of course, this is a question of fact to be decided by evidence, but here’s my speculation:
Given the size of the population, it’s clear that there will be some people who fall in either direction. Some people will find a gradual transition easier, some will be hindered by the possibility. I’m inclined to believe that it’d make things easier for more people than harder, but I have no basis of evidence to make that claim. It occurs to me that a general push to reduce meat consumption will also likely move the Overton window towards veganism, which would make large-scale vegan goals easier to achieve.
Generally, when society at large is as far removed from a position as it is with veganism, advocating for a half-measure will tend to help the cause rather than hurt it. Veganism requires changing the minds of the entire world, and getting people acclimated to the idea that we eat too much meat will likely help with that.
LMK if I wasn’t able to answer your question, or if you want to ask another one.