Fan mail from the people you resonated with (over the last twelve months, 94% of which predates this radical shift) does not go to show that your messaging strategy does more good than harm. You could gather donations and glowing emails from donors inspired by your groundbreaking #DonateToAnimalsToAccelerateTheReturnOfChrist campaign, but dealing reputational damage to the animal welfare movement has a cost that your figures don’t show.
This post says that veganism is good, and other approaches to improving animal welfare are also good. So, together, these facts would not support deriding veganism to the public. A study showing that insulting veganism primes meat-eaters to be more pliable to pro-animal arguments and take pro-animal action would be evidence for the strategy of dissing veganism—but you don’t have that. All you have is studies showing that meat eaters listen to meat eaters more than vegans. That would support a “Hey, you don’t have to go vegan to help animals—I eat meat and I donate to offset” message. Tacking on “and vegans can suck it” just weakens the vegan movement and has no evidence to justify it; you might has well have taken it further (maybe a minigame where you slap an annoying vegan activist?) or gone lighter (“vegans are sweet, but man, sometimes I wish they’d be more understanding!”) with no empirical basis to guide the message’s intensity or to support the theory behind it at all.
Meh. Not really, no. They didn’t ask donors if they were compelled by their forget Veganuary campaign, which strikes me as a very sloppy omission when testing a risky approach. Really, they should have been even more granular than that, such as asking donors if they are donating to stick it to vegans—I’d be inclined to believe that those types of donors will never donate again, because they’re animated by a media fervor about wimpy vegans, not by compassion for farmed animals. The high end of that estimate range is definitely not reasonable. But anyways, obviously some cohort exists anywhere you look, but my point is that this is not a significant target audience—FK argue that most people aren’t vegan and aren’t headed in that direction, but even fewer people are omnivorous offsetters, and even fewer are moving in that direction. Also, that someone was compelled to donate by this campaign doesn’t imply that they wouldn’t have done so without its anti-vegan elements, nor that their attitude to veganism is so intensely negative that there’s no harm in representing the movement to them as ineffective, annoying, and worthy of dismissal.
The theory of change here just makes no sense to me—and even if it did, FK took it much further than would be necessary if “forget about veganism and look me in my eyes as I talk about farmed animal suffering” was the idea.
Who is so willing to entertain radical pro-animal positions (and remember that to basically every person outside of the animal welfare movement, “I am personally prepared to donate money to improve the welfare of farmed animals” is extremely radical, and is way less common a position than “I should make my money off of treating animals as badly as I have to in order to make money/eat my favorite foods”) that they would be won over by arguments to donate from compassion for animals, BUT has such a red line at changing their eating habits that any discussion of the matter that doesn’t just ignore diet change but even fails to deride it and those advocating for it (I recall references to activists trying to “trick you into going vegan”) would be dead on arrival—and this subject, who is willing to radically change their position on their responsibility towards animal welfare because they find the suffering of farmed animals to be a serious tragedy worthy of their donations, would be enthused by campaigns about people quitting veganism, eating a whole goat, etc. AND this person would never have gone vegan, so they exist in this very narrow (I believe imaginary) band of concern where they’re moved by compassion for animals and personal will to commit regular money to offset their animal consumption, but they would never have gone vegan anyways, so we had to stab that idea in front of them before they’d even listen to us about the issue of farmed animal welfare.
Who is this person? Who is so allergic to veganism that they are drawn to campaigns that crudely deride it and its adherents and revel in imagery of meat-eating and quitting veganism, but also feels exceptional compassion for farmed animals and is willing to make a durable commitment to donate money to animal activists (most of whom are the much-hated vegans) to help them?
I don’t think a large target audience of this kind exists, certainly not enough to offset the negative impact of promoting hatred and abandonment of the animal welfare movement’s most visible, durable, proven-impactful form and identity. And there will be no end to factory farming without the vegan movement. The same people who thumbs-up at “forget veganuary” will give two thumbs up to the next person who tells them “forget offset donations”—and there’s a long line of people ready to say that.
Yes, I'm joking, but keeping a payload, any payload, at the cost of the actual principles of your supposed cause, is pointless. Like, they could adjust their message to appeal to people who are alienated by appeals to animal welfare at all, and just advocate for meatless mondays in the name of reducing methane emissions. But that would be pretty ineffective, just like sending this bizarre, conflicted message and discouraging pro-animal advocacy is ineffective.
Why not go even further with outreach and diss the unpopular issue of animal welfare altogether? Then you can reach a huge crowd of people with your new modified message for good: "animal welfare is irrelevant".
Obviously discouraging veganism is completely antithetical to reducing animal suffering, because: the vegan movement is the best pool we have for effective animal advocates; opposing veganism while ostensing to advocate for animals sends a weak moral message that reduces moral pressure on industrial farming; being non-vegan = funding industrial farming.
I mean spending money and energy on animal welfare or some other positive cause rather than on alleviating poverty.
Doesn't that sound more like "direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility" than does the "absurd and impractical" contention that "further development will [not] ever be justified"?
The conclusion would be that we'd better stop dumping money on the global poor to make sure we have as many meat-eaters as possible to support an unregulated factory farming industry, and direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility rather than just rtitualistically making offerings to the past.
Fan mail from the people you resonated with (over the last twelve months, 94% of which predates this radical shift) does not go to show that your messaging strategy does more good than harm. You could gather donations and glowing emails from donors inspired by your groundbreaking #DonateToAnimalsToAccelerateTheReturnOfChrist campaign, but dealing reputational damage to the animal welfare movement has a cost that your figures don’t show.
This post says that veganism is good, and other approaches to improving animal welfare are also good. So, together, these facts would not support deriding veganism to the public. A study showing that insulting veganism primes meat-eaters to be more pliable to pro-animal arguments and take pro-animal action would be evidence for the strategy of dissing veganism—but you don’t have that. All you have is studies showing that meat eaters listen to meat eaters more than vegans. That would support a “Hey, you don’t have to go vegan to help animals—I eat meat and I donate to offset” message. Tacking on “and vegans can suck it” just weakens the vegan movement and has no evidence to justify it; you might has well have taken it further (maybe a minigame where you slap an annoying vegan activist?) or gone lighter (“vegans are sweet, but man, sometimes I wish they’d be more understanding!”) with no empirical basis to guide the message’s intensity or to support the theory behind it at all.
Meh. Not really, no. They didn’t ask donors if they were compelled by their forget Veganuary campaign, which strikes me as a very sloppy omission when testing a risky approach. Really, they should have been even more granular than that, such as asking donors if they are donating to stick it to vegans—I’d be inclined to believe that those types of donors will never donate again, because they’re animated by a media fervor about wimpy vegans, not by compassion for farmed animals. The high end of that estimate range is definitely not reasonable. But anyways, obviously some cohort exists anywhere you look, but my point is that this is not a significant target audience—FK argue that most people aren’t vegan and aren’t headed in that direction, but even fewer people are omnivorous offsetters, and even fewer are moving in that direction. Also, that someone was compelled to donate by this campaign doesn’t imply that they wouldn’t have done so without its anti-vegan elements, nor that their attitude to veganism is so intensely negative that there’s no harm in representing the movement to them as ineffective, annoying, and worthy of dismissal.
The theory of change here just makes no sense to me—and even if it did, FK took it much further than would be necessary if “forget about veganism and look me in my eyes as I talk about farmed animal suffering” was the idea.
Who is so willing to entertain radical pro-animal positions (and remember that to basically every person outside of the animal welfare movement, “I am personally prepared to donate money to improve the welfare of farmed animals” is extremely radical, and is way less common a position than “I should make my money off of treating animals as badly as I have to in order to make money/eat my favorite foods”) that they would be won over by arguments to donate from compassion for animals, BUT has such a red line at changing their eating habits that any discussion of the matter that doesn’t just ignore diet change but even fails to deride it and those advocating for it (I recall references to activists trying to “trick you into going vegan”) would be dead on arrival—and this subject, who is willing to radically change their position on their responsibility towards animal welfare because they find the suffering of farmed animals to be a serious tragedy worthy of their donations, would be enthused by campaigns about people quitting veganism, eating a whole goat, etc. AND this person would never have gone vegan, so they exist in this very narrow (I believe imaginary) band of concern where they’re moved by compassion for animals and personal will to commit regular money to offset their animal consumption, but they would never have gone vegan anyways, so we had to stab that idea in front of them before they’d even listen to us about the issue of farmed animal welfare.
Who is this person? Who is so allergic to veganism that they are drawn to campaigns that crudely deride it and its adherents and revel in imagery of meat-eating and quitting veganism, but also feels exceptional compassion for farmed animals and is willing to make a durable commitment to donate money to animal activists (most of whom are the much-hated vegans) to help them?
I don’t think a large target audience of this kind exists, certainly not enough to offset the negative impact of promoting hatred and abandonment of the animal welfare movement’s most visible, durable, proven-impactful form and identity. And there will be no end to factory farming without the vegan movement. The same people who thumbs-up at “forget veganuary” will give two thumbs up to the next person who tells them “forget offset donations”—and there’s a long line of people ready to say that.
Yes, I'm joking, but keeping a payload, any payload, at the cost of the actual principles of your supposed cause, is pointless. Like, they could adjust their message to appeal to people who are alienated by appeals to animal welfare at all, and just advocate for meatless mondays in the name of reducing methane emissions. But that would be pretty ineffective, just like sending this bizarre, conflicted message and discouraging pro-animal advocacy is ineffective.
Why not go even further with outreach and diss the unpopular issue of animal welfare altogether? Then you can reach a huge crowd of people with your new modified message for good: "animal welfare is irrelevant".
FarmKind is openly hostile towards veganism, which makes no sense. See this stunt here: https://www.gbnews.com/news/veganuary-actvist-meat-eating-campaign and this social media video in which they refer to people being "tricked into going vegan": https://www.instagram.com/p/DQuPg0VjMJf/
Obviously discouraging veganism is completely antithetical to reducing animal suffering, because: the vegan movement is the best pool we have for effective animal advocates; opposing veganism while ostensing to advocate for animals sends a weak moral message that reduces moral pressure on industrial farming; being non-vegan = funding industrial farming.
What is the point of this?
I mean spending money and energy on animal welfare or some other positive cause rather than on alleviating poverty.
Doesn't that sound more like "direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility" than does the "absurd and impractical" contention that "further development will [not] ever be justified"?
That's a pretty good idea
The conclusion would be that we'd better stop dumping money on the global poor to make sure we have as many meat-eaters as possible to support an unregulated factory farming industry, and direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility rather than just rtitualistically making offerings to the past.
What is unpragmatic about not pouring money into global development if we determine that it is harmful?