Nice article with much to agree. I do think the association with heterodox "edgy" theories like consequentialism and utilitarianism does alienate the regular folks audience a bit, and framing these issues in more traditional moral language seems to be the most effective way to reach out to a broader audience. I've been thinking on why shock strategies like PETA's backfire so often and I've come to the conclusion that people need small contexts with small wins to create rapport with a cause; just flooding them with the inhumane cruelty of our food systems can make one feel disgusted but powerless, given the overwhelming quality of the challenge. Even small actions can have differential outcomes to welfare and those are most easily achievable in the short and medium term, as well as promising ones to turn a dial on awareness in the long run