The problem with Gary is he thinks he knows the 'only' way to fight for AR. Sure it's good to talk to people about the issues, that's what I do too. But that's not to say red paint and the like does not work. Infact it is funny what actually works and it's not always nice.
That is a curious statement, Aran. I would contend that Gary is discussion the ways NOT to fight for AR. I'm also interested to hear why you think that throwing red paint on a woman wearing fur will change the way people think about the commodity status of animals. Isn't it more likely to simply perpetuate the way people think about activists? Lasting, positive change is brought about through acts of compassion; not terrorism.
Property damage has been used in passed social justice movements the suffragettes used arson and smashed windows, etc. In many cases people will not stop doing something because its wrong but will because doing so leads to adverse consequences for them. This achieves the short term goal of saving animals now. Once an activity is less socially prevalent it is easier for social attitudes to change on the subject in question as it does not involve giving up anything.
All movements have had many tactics and a monoculture wasteland of vegan education alone will not change the world. Don't get me wrong education is important, that's what I'm involved in. But it takes many types to make a movement.
AranSPEAKS, I disagree. The presence of violence in social justice movements is not evidence of its efficacy. Regarding social prevalence: I am in total agreement, but this same concept applies in tactical Nonviolence. It is far from a monoculture. There are those who are noncooperative, those who protest, those who intervene, those who abstain, and all have the capacity to educate on a moral front, as well. Present a case for violence. Prove that scare tactics bring lasting positive change.
These things cannot be proven or dis-proven. You cannot show me that a totally lawful movement would had got further than this point and I cannot show you that unlawful tactics will help bring about total liberation.
I feel you are wrong to presume the public cannot separate the cause and it's advocates, the fact is each time there is a negative media article new people think about the issue that never otherwise would. Some actually agree with the action and become activists or supporters, others disagree with the action but after research find out they support the cause.
I am all for tactical non-violence but that includes all actions that don't physically harm other animals, human or non. I am also all in favour of those who feel one style of advocacy and action is right for them, I just think its wrong to presume to think other kinds of action won't work as you can't prove that.
I think this requires a more precise definition of violence. Actions taken that cause someone to fear for their safety and physical well-being are not actions that I would consider nonviolent. A simple application of the Golden Rule gets you there. --On an unrelated note, I hate the "thumbs down" feature on here, because it smacks of censorship. I want you to know that I will never express my disagreement with your ideas using a red thumb.
Fair enough, but I'm asking for a case for violence, not indisputable evidence of an entirely unlawful and successful movement. In terms of the public's capacity for understanding, the idea is generating compassion, not fear. Nearly every counter-AR argument involves the citing of terrorist actions. Terrorism hardens hearts and makes them more susceptible to adopting the opposite view. The Patriot Act and the Iraqi invasion are excellent examples of the malleability of a frightened public.
cool, i never thought about telling people to go vegan for each meal.
mycrusade 2 years ago 6
The problem with Gary is he thinks he knows the 'only' way to fight for AR. Sure it's good to talk to people about the issues, that's what I do too. But that's not to say red paint and the like does not work. Infact it is funny what actually works and it's not always nice.
AranSPEAKS 2 years ago
That is a curious statement, Aran. I would contend that Gary is discussion the ways NOT to fight for AR. I'm also interested to hear why you think that throwing red paint on a woman wearing fur will change the way people think about the commodity status of animals. Isn't it more likely to simply perpetuate the way people think about activists? Lasting, positive change is brought about through acts of compassion; not terrorism.
KDSARC 2 years ago
Property damage has been used in passed social justice movements the suffragettes used arson and smashed windows, etc. In many cases people will not stop doing something because its wrong but will because doing so leads to adverse consequences for them. This achieves the short term goal of saving animals now. Once an activity is less socially prevalent it is easier for social attitudes to change on the subject in question as it does not involve giving up anything.
AranSPEAKS 2 years ago
All movements have had many tactics and a monoculture wasteland of vegan education alone will not change the world. Don't get me wrong education is important, that's what I'm involved in. But it takes many types to make a movement.
AranSPEAKS 2 years ago
AranSPEAKS, I disagree. The presence of violence in social justice movements is not evidence of its efficacy. Regarding social prevalence: I am in total agreement, but this same concept applies in tactical Nonviolence. It is far from a monoculture. There are those who are noncooperative, those who protest, those who intervene, those who abstain, and all have the capacity to educate on a moral front, as well. Present a case for violence. Prove that scare tactics bring lasting positive change.
KDSARC 2 years ago 3
These things cannot be proven or dis-proven. You cannot show me that a totally lawful movement would had got further than this point and I cannot show you that unlawful tactics will help bring about total liberation.
AranSPEAKS 2 years ago
I feel you are wrong to presume the public cannot separate the cause and it's advocates, the fact is each time there is a negative media article new people think about the issue that never otherwise would. Some actually agree with the action and become activists or supporters, others disagree with the action but after research find out they support the cause.
AranSPEAKS 2 years ago
I am all for tactical non-violence but that includes all actions that don't physically harm other animals, human or non. I am also all in favour of those who feel one style of advocacy and action is right for them, I just think its wrong to presume to think other kinds of action won't work as you can't prove that.
AranSPEAKS 2 years ago
I think this requires a more precise definition of violence. Actions taken that cause someone to fear for their safety and physical well-being are not actions that I would consider nonviolent. A simple application of the Golden Rule gets you there. --On an unrelated note, I hate the "thumbs down" feature on here, because it smacks of censorship. I want you to know that I will never express my disagreement with your ideas using a red thumb.
KDSARC 2 years ago 4
Fair enough, but I'm asking for a case for violence, not indisputable evidence of an entirely unlawful and successful movement. In terms of the public's capacity for understanding, the idea is generating compassion, not fear. Nearly every counter-AR argument involves the citing of terrorist actions. Terrorism hardens hearts and makes them more susceptible to adopting the opposite view. The Patriot Act and the Iraqi invasion are excellent examples of the malleability of a frightened public.
KDSARC 2 years ago 3
Loved seeing Gary live!
TheVeganPoet1 2 years ago 3