 Hello everyone, welcome to today's episode of the Carb Strongcast. Okay, so today's guest is a guest who I've had on before, Dr. Michelle Lowe, who's a PhD psychologist and lecturer. And today we're going to talk about different activism methods, how the few can influence the many, certain effects in psychology, which help people change. And I really do think this is an important podcast to sit through, because we really go over some of the objections people have with certain types of activism, how activism works, how people change, aggressive activism, different types of activism, diluting the message, what that does to the message. So please, sit back, if you've got some time, chuck the headphones on, listen to this one in its entirety. And I guarantee you'll leave with some value. So enjoy. Okay, welcome everybody to this interview with one of my friends and comrades in the movement, Dr. Michelle Lowe. How are you going, Michelle? Hi, I'm very well, thank you. So I thought I'd get you on to discuss some things that you might have some expertise in, or at least have researched a lot about. And that's the way activism works, the way social change works. Can you just explain to people what you do and what your expertise is? Yeah, I'm an academic psychologist. I work at a UK university. I specialize in forensic and social psychology. So that involves crime, but it also involves a lot about social change and social justice. And I've done research for the last 20, yeah, 20 years now, not specifically on activism or on veganism, but the, the theories, the concepts, the perspectives used in social psychology really, really closely onto the way that the vegan activism movement works and he's moving forward. So I feel that I can use my expertise in social psychology for the good within the vegan movement. Wow. So I've got a YouTube channel and that's vegan based. It's not solely vegan, but it's vegan based and I cover some key concepts within some of the videos that relate to the social psychology of vegan activism. Okay. Well, I guess we'll start with how the few can influence the many and what that's takes, what that takes and what that has taken in history. Can you explain a little bit about that? Yeah, minority influence. That's what we call it in social psychology. So there was a French social psychologist. We're back in the, in the 60s, I think, called Moscovici and he said that there's a number of principles that if put in place, the few, the minority can begin to influence the many. So his kind of the theory that he built around this minority influence was quite starkly against the social psychological movement that are developed in America, which was all about the majority and the force of the majority. So Moscovici's work is still, it's still current and it's been extended a lot in, in more recent times. But we do know there are, there are several basic principles that a minority group can put in place to begin to influence a majority in the most influential way. Okay, what are the principles? Well, for example, if a group, a minority group is consistent with their message and they are, they are, there has to be a move towards that area anyway. Otherwise you just get, I suppose you just get banded as being a, you know, a fringe, a lunatic fringe, right? So there has to be a social movement going in that direction to begin with, but a minority group can start to steer that direction by being consistent, by putting an argument together that is incredibly difficult to refute. So that might come from, it might come from science, it might come from society, but a, a collection of principles put together that are difficult to refute from different angles, but that consistent message comes over. That's the bedrock of Moskvich's theory on minority influence. There are other things as well that can be debated, but in more recent years, the, the area of minority influence has been used a lot in marketing in terms of, you know, advertising to get people to buy a product. So I think in terms of vegan activism, some of those principles that have been investigated in relation to the social psychology of persuasion, they are key. So as well as having the consistent message and a message that is so accurate and it's difficult to refute, there's also a number of other things that can be put in place by activists that will assist in that process. So for example, in the mid 1980s, a couple of social psychologists called Petty and Cacioppo, they published a set of papers outlining the way that, it's all been used in advertising, but it can be used in any form of persuasion. They put together a model in which they said to persuade someone into your way of thinking. It's incredibly difficult because, you know, people can deny, they can, they can kind of backtrack and so on and so forth, but it brings in what Muscovici said about consistency, that if, if you have an audience that is listening to you, there's two ways, there's two ways that they can think about the issues. They can elaborate on it so they can take an elaborate way, an elaborate social cognitive process and really think through the arguments. And if they're willing to do that, then there are certain things that can assist with that level of persuasion. And if that's successful, that change in attitude tends to be stronger, more long-lasting and, and I suppose potentially permanent. So that's called the central route of persuasion. So to get someone to think deeply through those, through the issues that might be arising, the things that they might have to challenge in themselves, that they have to challenge their own attitudes, their own socialization, for example. Then you want to think about things like the strength of the message. So this brings in what Muscovici said about the consistency and the robustness of the message. So is, does that message stand up to scrutiny? So the message itself needs to be strong. But there's also other things as well that have been investigated and studied to death in relation to advertising, but these can include things like, who is the person delivering the message? So is the person delivering the message, the source of the message, are they credible? Do they have, for example, a level of expertise? Do they have a level of authority? Do they have a standing within that movement as a, as a leader, as someone who is respected? Or are they considered an expert in the field? So for example, if, if let's say, for example, the government wanted to, I don't know, stop people smoking and they started a anti-smoking campaign, then part of that would be to get people to really think about the issues relating to smoking. So they'd want people to think through the possible negative outcomes of smoking, like lung cancer and heart disease and so on. And to get them to deliver that message, you would incorporate a series of experts. So you might have a medical set of experts, but there are, there would be a certain group, and I'll come on to the audience effects in a moment, but there would be certain groups of people who would be better influenced by different types of people. So for example, you might have like middle-aged or older people who would be, they'd listen to a medical professional, they'd listen to someone who had the degrees, they had the, you know, they had the research behind them, but there'd be other members of the community of the population who wouldn't care a job, what a medic said. Actually, they would listen more to somebody, maybe who was closer to their age or closer to their, you know, someone that they looked up to. So it could be a professional footballer, it could be someone in a celebrity, it could be pop stars. So the person delivering the message, there is never going to be one person that can deliver that message successfully to everybody. So it's about kind of like, if you put in a campaign together, like a government putting an anti-smoking campaign together, they'd kind of use a whole series of different levels of supported experts or people who were respected. The audience itself, the audience, the people who are receiving that message, they can, you know, it tends to be people who are really, really, really intelligent, like the really high-flying people within the community who are the most difficult to persuade, strangely enough, because they're the ones who will bring up the most obtuse arguments. They'd be the most difficult people to argue down. But in general, in general terms, then really you kind of have to kind of think about matching the audience to the person delivering the message. But ultimately, it's all about the message itself. Everything else is secondary to the message itself. If the message, as Muscovici said, if the message is consistent and it's clear, it's accurate, it can't be refuted, then that message stands and people can choose to take that message forward and look at it deeply and start investigating it themselves or they can leave it behind. The other way that persuasion can happen is through peripheral routes. So it can be people jumping on a bandwagon. It can be the latest trend. Therefore, if you're selling like jeans or you're selling the latest form and all you want is a sale, then you can advertise your products through the peripheral route. So it's making it look glossy and shiny and this is the newest thing. This is the thing you really want to make your life complete, really shallow types of message. But that type of persuasion could be successful to get people to buy a new phone, but it doesn't keep them oil to that brand. It doesn't keep them coming back for more. It doesn't change their attitude really at all. It really just, it does what it's needed for that purpose is to buy a phone. But if you think about it in terms of social movements like veganism or stopping people smoking, it's less successful. It's less useful to get people to process in that shallow way because it's not going to stick. So if veganism becomes like a trend amongst a certain group of people, yeah, people who identify with that group are going to give it a try, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to change their attitudes. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going to learn about veganism, learn about the ethics and the morality and what actually happens in farming, what actually happens in slaughterhouses because all they're doing is processing that message shallowly and they're not prepared or not able for whatever reason, they're not able to change their opinion and for that change in their behavior to become permanent. So that's why I think we see a lot of people within veganism who very quickly leave veganism because their friends are doing it. They see it as a trend. There's a pop star that's doing it. And they leave it. So yeah, of course you are going to get people who have a goal, do it for a week, do it for a month and they leave. But in terms of building up an activist movement, what we really should be getting people to think through are the issues and to focus on the central route of persuasion. That would be my advice to vegan activists that it's all very well to, you know, show that you can build big muscles and you can be, you know, you can be more sexy and you can be more attractive by being plant based but that doesn't invite people in the same way as putting a really, a really strong, accurate, ethical message forward. The research would suggest we need the ethics to go on. I was just gonna say that you're actually conveying a lot of the things that we've discussed that I've gone over with other activists about. And that's the fact that when you dilute the message to reach a larger pool of people, say you wanna reach a larger population so you're diluting the message, you're censoring yourself, you're not being honest to avoid any feelings getting riled up. All of those things dilute the message to the pool. You might get a larger, larger following. So you might influence more people but on a surface level so you've then diluted your message and it's less effective on average. Yeah? That's right. And also like, let's just say, yeah, it has a smaller following with a very explicit, hardcore, true message, hard to argue, evidence-based and they're standing strong in their convictions and delivering a very powerful animal rights message that is covered with the slaughterhouse footage versus someone who says, hey, give it a try, you know, cut out this here and there, you know, a little bit of a diluted flaky message to maybe be more liked and to sort of catch more people in. That doesn't necessarily mean it's gonna be more effective on average. Yeah? That's absolutely the case. Yeah, we've kind of got to, we've got to tease two things apart here because we've got veganism, which is the ethical movement, which is calling for the end, the abolition of exploitation and cruelty to animals. And then you've got a slightly different type of message, which I would consider it to be reducer terrium, that let's cut down on the amount of meat you eat. Let's cut down on the amount of eggs you have every week. Let's try plant-based milks instead of dairy because they're better for you. The research suggests that, you know, you're more likely to have heart disease and high cholesterol if you eat lots of meat and cut it down, cut it down. And veganism, vegans can use health arguments. I've no problem with vegans using arguments like that or using bodybuilders to advertise the plant-based movement because it does open up the door to types of people, groups of people who would never have considered plant-based living or plant-based foods or giving up animal protein. Yeah, that's all well and good. That's fine. But if that's all you're doing, that is all you're doing, you might be reaching a wider audience and some of those, some of those might begin to think through, well, if I don't need meat to be strong and to be fit and to play my sport, then why am I eating it when I know that the animals are suffering because of it? So, yeah, you will get, if you spread your net widely, you will get a proportion of those who will take it upon themselves to do that research. Possibly because at some point in their life they've encountered a vegan message, they've encountered maybe somebody stopping them in the street and saying, you know, have you considered this? Have you considered what animals go through? But they've set it aside because they're a bodybuilder and, well, I understand that animals are suffering, but I need it because I'm a bodybuilder. So once that's, it's made clear to them through a different argument that actually you don't need animal protein to become strong and fit and to carry on in your sport, then they can go back to the message that they heard at some point in the past that they'd put to one side that they'd not thought anything really off and that is in social psychology is called the sleeper effect. So there's several things that I think social psychology can bring forward here to explain why some people will just go vegan like that based on some seemingly very shallow type of message, such as, look, John Venus is strong or look at Derek Simner and he's strong and just looking at the aesthetics and you think, why is that person just looking at something that seemingly quite shallow? Why has that person decided to not only give up animal foods, give up animal protein, but also they've taken on an ethical stance. They've for whatever reason gone forward and taught themselves, gone away and done the research themselves. And for people who are spreading the net widely, they can use those kind of anecdotes that, yeah, there are a few people who will use that really quite shallow message that initially and become ethical vegans, right? And they'll say, all we have to do is spread on that widely and a few of those, you know, throw more darts at the dartboard and the more likely you are to get a hit. But I would suspect based on psychology, I would suspect that those few people who do convert permanently, change their attitudes and become ethical vegans are people who have heard messages before at some point in the past that were ethical messages but they've denied them. They've put them to one side because of this effect that we call the sleep effect that you can hear a message that's really powerful and really strong, but you back away from it at first because you're not ready. You're not ready to hear it. You're not prepared to hear it. It doesn't apply to you or I can't do it because I'm a bodybuilder type thing or I can't do it because I'm whatever. But that message has sat there somewhere in the brain and then at some point in the future, it could be months, it could be years. At some point in the future, they're triggered again and it comes back to them and it's the message that they remember. So however way we look at this, whether we are looking at spreading the net widely or whether we're looking at having more targeted campaigns that focus on the real powerful impact of showing slaughterhouse footage, whichever way you dress it up, whichever route you take, it always comes down to the message, because even if that message doesn't look successful to the vast majority of people initially, there will be some of those people via the sleeper effect who have denied it at first and at some point then in the future will have remembered that message and will take it upon themselves to go away and do their own research. And it's that permanent attitude change. I think we need because those are the people who will be the people those are the people who will be the force to take the movement forward. The people who just want to try veganism because they think, oh, well, I've got a little bit of high cholesterol or I want to get big muscles and I've watched game changers, right? Those people, the vast majority of those people with no other message behind it, with no substance behind it, they're not going to become vegan. They might try plant-based diet for a month, but they're not going to become vegan. Not by the notion of what a vegan is anyway. They might have an idea of what they think a vegan is, but they might not be fully practising and clothing and, you know, they might be having a bit of animal products here and there and just declaring they're vegan because they got a diverted message to begin with. But what I think, so what you're saying is that people that are... There's this theory that by advocating health and environment, you're more likely to draw people in to go vegan. But how are they supposed to make that full transition into a completely practising vegan if they've never had the actual message that will get them there? They can only be sort of a plant-based version of what a vegan actually is, but maybe majority plant-based eating or something like that. But until they get that message, wherever it might be, from whatever angle they come in, they have to get that message to take it seriously and fully practise it. So when people go, well, you should be advocating just for health or you should be advocating for environment so as to not turn people off. The people that come in through health and environment, they find the ethical message and that's what solidifies it or it's the other way around. They get the ethical message from someone like us or whoever it is in the movement. They might not take it on right. They get the message. It's in their brain. They don't change and then these other more surface level aspects hit them which might cover one of their objections, their multiple objections and then they change because they've originally heard the message. Yeah, yeah. It all comes down to the message, delivering the message. So even though it might seem demoralising and it might seem off-putting to some people to deliver that very powerful message, it's that message that vegans need to deliver. Whether they upset people or not, they need to deliver that message. So if we talk about that, talk about what if this sleeper effect that you're talking about, it's like a seed, like I used to call it a seed being planted. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, and then it flourishes later. The sleeper, they wake up. But that's what's in your mind. And so talk about people that, because sometimes I can be considered abrasive. I can be considered aggressive and all those things, but my message is always predominantly the same. It's the same message and people perceive my attitude in different ways and they might go across, leave a little bit angry or people might watch the video and be a bit angry and I get an angry comment. I get a lot of angry comments. You know, I dare you and they might attack my character but not attack the message and just did that, did that then invalidate that message or that work that I did because some people might be angry with it or does it still hold true that the sleeper effect will manifest? It still holds true. It still holds true. If you were going around abusing people and making claims that were not valid just to get people to listen to you, then that's not good vegan activism. If your message is, could come across as abrasive or blunt or rude, but that message is clear. It's informative. It's accurate. It's verifiable. Those facts stand regardless of who delivered that message. Now, of course, as I said before, there are, in the literature, there are research studies that will say, you know, if you want people to really listen to you, you've got to come across as credible. You've got to come across as an expert in your field. But experts, as I said before, experts in the field or people considered credible can be determined by the person listening to the message. So you can't change the way the person you are. You can't change. I would suggest that if you try to change the way that you deliver your message and in doing that, you weakened your message. I think that does the message of the service. It's much better to be true to yourself, to be passionate, to be credible and to say, look, I've been to slaughterhouses. I've seen what happens. I've been an activist for X number of years. And this is reality. That's much more powerful than someone who comes along and says, well, if you give up meat, you know, you'll be healthy. And by the way, some animals won't die. Because that doesn't deliver the vegan message. It delivers a message, but it doesn't deliver a powerful message that will plant that seed. And I think that the activists within the vegan movement at the moment, I think there are different styles, but that's fine. That's fine. But they are delivering a consistent message. And it's that consistency that we need. All comes down to the message. Not everyone is delivering a consistent message. And it kind of does create a little bit, it cloudies the message a little bit. Because when you go out to the wider audience, the wider vegan arena, there's a very clouded view of what a vegan actually is, which is why you get people mispracticing veganism because they have it. That's true. I mean, I would say that I made a comment in a video the other day and I said, I consider the plant-based doctors like Michael Greger and so on as allies of the vegan movement. Because although they occasionally mention ethics, their message, the way they make their money, the way their career has been put forward in the media is one of a medic, one of a plant-based doctor. So they've got a health message. So they're an ally of the vegan movement and we can use their expertise. We can use what they are saying about the research on cholesterol or the research on heart disease. We can use that, but we can't put that in place instead of the vegan message. It's in addition to the vegan message. I agree, they're a very valuable ally and without this research, we really wouldn't know how to respond to a lot of these arguments. So it isn't a bolstering message and it's an addition, but the core message has to remain the same. I was just wondering like with this sleeper effect and you said the main thing is the message and they receive the message and when it flourishes, it flourishes. It might be sooner, it might be a little bit later depending on a certain number of factors. What do you think of? I've heard this in psychology something called the backfire effect where a message is taken abrasively and they double down and less likely to be persuaded to change their behavior. What do you think of that? Yeah, that is a thing. That is something that can happen when somebody's not ready to listen to that message. So you might have somebody who, I mean, I did this myself. I was a vegetarian for a long time. I tried veganism. I fell off the vegan wagon, but I continued to be vegetarian. But for many years, I knew I knew what was going on in the dairy industry and I chose to deny it. And if someone had at certain points during those years that I was denying, if someone had come along and showed me a photograph of a cow, you know, having a calf taken away from her, I would have said, yeah, that's horrible, but and I would very, very strongly have put that in place and I would have doubled down on my efforts to deny. So you're always going to have people who are not ready. So I think the backfire effect is a demonstration of people who are not ready. And you are going to have many people who will never be ready to listen to a vegan message because they might not even like animals, right? They just think, well, animals are things that we share a planet with and I'd rather not really be here and, you know, they're much lesser, lesser importance and the only reason why we should have animals is for human usage. There are people who believe that and strongly believe that. Those people are never, never going to change. So we've got to accept as vegans, we've got to accept that there are some people who will never change. And there are everybody else in the middle, right? Who are at varying levels of willingness to listen. So I think like I said, the backfire effect is that demonstration of somebody who is partway there. I would suggest that the backfire effect is a demonstration of someone who knows the truth but is not ready yet to listen to it. He's not ready yet to fully commit to it. That might be because they've been influenced by peers. It might be because they, they don't believe that, you know, they might, they might have this strange opinion that all vegans are wacky and just hippies and, you know, that's not me kind of thing. But again, that can, that can be countered by various things. It can be countered by showing people actually that vegans come from all walks of life. They come from a wide variety of backgrounds. The vegan movement is, is diverse. And that, that in itself can look very, very shallow. But what you've got backing up, what you've got behind it is the message. The sleeper effect. So doesn't the backfire, doesn't the sleeper effect kind of contradict the backfire effect? Because they got, they backfired and then what happens later on? I don't think it does. I think it, I think it compliments. I think you, you have people who are not prepared to listen because it's too horrible to watch Starter House footage. But they know, they know that they are playing into. They are buying products that are harming animals. And they're not prepared to watch Starter House footage and they back away and they, they put their wall up and what it feels like to the activist is that their efforts in getting someone to, to listen has backfired because it's made them stronger. You know, well, the more you shout at me, the more you try to show me this horrible footage, the less likely I am to go vegan. Well, they were never going to go vegan anyway. They're just using this, they're using this wall, this wall of anger because actually they feel guilty. They're in denial. They feel guilty. So I think those people, if you get that reaction, I think that seed has been planted. Yeah, so that the sleeper effect can still come into play even after the fire effect. Exactly. And actually, I couldn't cite any research to back this up. This is just my opinion, but I would suggest that people who have a really strong backfire effect are the ones who are the more slightly in the future once they've got over, once they've jumped over that wall and that final straw has been put in place. Those are the ones who feel strongly because if they didn't feel strongly, they wouldn't have had that aggressive reaction in the first place. Exactly right. And the apathetic people who don't care, don't comment, they don't watch, they don't stop and debate, they just walk with apathetic. Like the ones who come at me or who spend their lives commenting, blah, blah, blah, or they watch one of my, they leave a bad, but people say, well, you're turning people away. Well, they got the message. So they're turning away with the message in their mind. That's right. It just, I used to feel like sometimes, well, when I was on TV and I reached such a wider audience, a really wide audience, this is when I'd really see the backlash of being on a straight-to-the-point direct and I would get a lot of people, oh my God, this guy, I can't believe him. Now, when their anger subsides, when their idea of me and how I made them feel subsides and all they're left with is that message, that's when the magic happens, isn't it? That's right. That's right. And you might never see that. You might never see that change. So to you, you're left with, oh, I've upset a lot of people and the media are on my back and I'm getting all this negative press, but you don't see the time when that person for whatever reason, wakes up and thinks, hold on a minute, why am I eating this, why am I eating steak? Why am I doing this? And that final penny has dropped. You don't see that, but it would have been your message that it would have been a large contributor to that person eventually becoming vegan. Like I said, I think the stronger the reaction they have, whether that's disgust or anger, I think those are the people who are more likely in their own time, they might need to turn to back away and go and think it through themselves, do the research, but those are the people who are the most reachable. Have you ever been in a situation where like a friend has told you something that is so true and so honest that you got so angry at them and then later on you started to like think about it and go, well, shit, they're right. Like what am I going to say? You know, like it's happened to me a few times. Like so I've seen it in action in other things where people are just blunt and honest. They say how it really is. They don't worry about all this pandering and changing their personality to the point, diluting the message to the point where like trying to beg people to like you and like, oh my God, I don't want to upset anyone. Like what do you think about? What do you think about trying to focus on being liked as an activism method versus on being, versus being honest with that strong message? I think if somebody is just, has got a likable personality and you know, they've got an attractive way about them, that's fine. That's great. But they've got to be delivering a strong message. If they're coming across as being likable and lovely and a little bit soft around the edges, but alongside that is nothing, alongside that is just this really dilute message. What is the point? What is the point in being liked when what you actually want is people to go vegan? What is the point? There's no reason to be likable. It doesn't serve the purpose. No, it's great if you have somebody who is, who is able to deliver a message to a wide number of people and to, you know, some people just very eloquent speakers standing up delivering a talk for example, you know, it stands to reason to put someone up on stage who is very eloquent, who is very clear, who can speak very plainly. But if you put that same person perhaps in a different environment, maybe, you know, in a five minute TV interview, that level of eloquence might be lost because they don't have the time to be able to deliver the points forcefully enough. So the place, the location in which the message is being delivered can also be a A factor in how best to deliver that message. If you've got five minutes, then it's much better to go in and deliver those points clearly, forcefully, very directly. If you've got a lecture slot, if you're doing a lecture series and you've got 30 minutes or 40 minutes or you're delivering a TED talk and you've got 20 minutes, well, you can spend longer, you can spend longer engaging with the audience, you know, being a bit more personable because you've got time to do that. But that's only relevant, that's only necessary if you have the time, the scope and you're in the appropriate setting for that to take place. But if you don't team that with a strong message, you are quite frankly, wasting your time. So Michelle, like what my problem is with focusing on being liked is that they sacrifice the message to be liked because the message will make people not like them. And that is what the pro like, of course you've got to be likeable to a certain extent but not to the point where you're sacrificing the message and not telling people what they need to hear, the message the animals need them to hear. That's absolutely the case. I mean, I don't know whether you've seen it but Vegan Games has been exchanging some response videos and he did a live stream the other night where I don't even know whether he's a gamer or something called Penguin, something or other. I don't know who he is. I've never heard of him before. And apparently this Penguin person has got a large following and on YouTube and he'd made a video about the absolutely gross. You know, like there's someone called Soi Young who is eating live animals on screen and he, this Penguin guy made a video about Soi Young but in the background there was like KFC. So Vegan Games made a video saying you're a hypocrite because you know, what is the difference between Soi Young eating an octopus on screen that you find so repulsive and you eating chicken because there's no difference. It's just the only difference is you've got somebody to do that killing for you. So Vegan Games did a live stream and he got tons and tons of trolls into the chat. It was pretty hilarious but I don't know how Richard kept his cool. He really did. But back in the day when Richard was much more controversial than he is now. I think he was on the verge of putting people off, you know, like stomping babies and things like that. They always come back to bite him. But all he's done is torn down a little bit. He's still as forceful. He's still as aggressive. He's still as unlikable to many people but he's incredibly effective at what he does because his message is consistent and his message is delivered in a consistent way across different types of people that he was able to engage and made a lot of money out of super chats. These trolls, like coming in with super chats so he'd read out their messages, he was really, really effective. He kept his cool and he stayed absolutely consistent. Now, not many people would have been able to do that. Richard has that ability to be able to do that. Whether you like him or not, he has that ability. And he will say himself that he's not a very likable person. A lot of people don't like him but a lot of people tune in to listen to him. And you bet your bottom dollar that some of those people who initially went into Richard's comment section or Richard's chat to have a troll have gone away, thought about it and are starting to think about making changes themselves. I can bet you any money that will happen to some of those guys who were in that chat the other night. No question about it. He's responsible for multiple thousands of vegans. It's just, there's no question about it. And he has said things that I would consider, you know, not necessary, but the overall message he delivers is true and consistent and ever based and he doesn't pander and he says what he feels he needs to say and worry about too much about, you know, hurting people's feelings in the process. I know there's a, there's a, there's a line. There's a line, but you know, if you find that balance, you know, delivering the strong message and not worrying about pandering too much, I think that that's really where you're going to get the really strong effective message. Can we, do you think there are any, well, we've already discussed some of them but do you think there are any big no-nos? I think, I think committing crime as in, you know, forceful physical violence, like going around, like hitting people is not helpful. So I think, I think that line has to be drawn in terms of physical violence. That's where I'd say, look, you know, you've gone too far. You are doing the movement of disservice by going out on the streets with the intention of picking fights. You're not there to keep you cool, to deliver that message in a credible way, right? If you are just going out there to pick a fight. So I think that's the line that we in the VEGA movement need to, need to set down. Like that's that line in the sand that you can go out there and be forceful. You can go out there and, and raise your voice if you need to and use words, you know, that are incredibly blunt and powerful and are going to shock people. But the line is drawn. You don't assault people. You don't threaten people and you don't, I think also making out of home attacks as well. That would, I think that would also cross the line because that then dilutes the message because it dilutes, it dilutes it away from the message to you. And the thing that they'll go away remembering is that mother was this weird guy giving vegan, vegan activism on the street and he just ended up punching two people and calling someone a fat cow. And that's all they'll remember. They won't remember the message. But if you, if you have someone who's calm, professional, but forceful, right? That, that is the avenue. That is the thing that they'll take away. And the avenue is down to the message rather than down to being put off by someone committing an act of violence in front of them. Yeah. So that's the line I would say. Yeah, I agree with you there. I agree with you. There's certain things like commenting on someone's appearance or to bring them down is keeping it about the message and if like an activist might like, let's throw this into the mix. An activist might call Dairy Farmer sort of doing an AI procedure on a cow. So that's right. That guy's a rapist. You know, I think when you say that you got to explain to someone why you come to that conclusion. Yeah, yeah. When you call what happens to animals having their head cut off murder, I think that's pretty self explanatory. But if you're just pointing at a farmer saying you're a rapist, right? They might take that as because they haven't made that logical step. They might just think that you're labeling someone a racist rapist without evidence like a shit or something. But when you explain what you do to that cows is rape. Yeah, yeah, yeah logical step for them. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, I think I think there are times such as that where you have to be careful with your wording. So if you go along to a farm and there are people who are witnessing this and you go in and call someone a rapist and an abuser and it just looks like a personal attack because you don't like them because they're a farmer. But if you instead of saying you're a rapist, if you can say do you understand that that behavior that you're committing looks very much like rape. And if you were doing that to a human female, would you consider that rape? So turn it round on them. Would you consider it right to do that to a human female? And they have to say yes. And then you say, well, why is it different when you're doing it to a cow? So you're not you've not you haven't used the word rapist. You haven't called them a rapist. What you've questioned is the act that they're committing. That's much more thought provoking to that person and anybody witnessing that than calling someone out and out a rapist even though they are. I used to get phone calls all the time from different journalists and I would just say that I would never deny that that's rape. I will never deny that what they do to those cows through those cows eyes is rape. They're being violated. They don't understand. It's it's horrible. So let's talk about for a second. I want to talk about agitation as an activism method, direct action, civil disobedient disruption and people who think that that makes the movement look bad. That can that can again that has a fine line. So if you have people who are going out committing acts of disruption and acts of disobedience and it just looks like they're going out there to cause trouble with no clear message attached to it. That is pointless. Right. They're just going to get themselves arrested. No one's going to no one's going to listen. Right. They're just going to, you know, and then if it comes out later that all it's a vegan activist group. Yeah. That doesn't kind of look good. If if people are skilled enough to be able to go and disrupt whether it's in the street or supermarket outside of Slaughter's wherever it might be. They're there to disrupt, but they're also delivering a message to those people listening that act of disruption in itself forces that message home. So it's an incredibly fine line. And I would say that people who are effective in that type of activism are perhaps special in that they are very skilled at it. I don't think just letting people go out and do that off their own back. It could very easily ending people people getting arrested for no good reason. So I'd I'd sit on the fence and say if it's done well, it can be incredibly effective, but it has to be done well with a really calm considered set of heads involved. So what I'm going to show you Michelle to comment on is this article that was written after an event that we did. Here's the title here. It says Militant Vegan activist storm coals and bombard customers with animal abuse videos in attempt to stop them buying meat and eggs. Okay. It goes on here to say a militant vegan activist has accused coal shoppers of animal abuse during a confronting demonstration in the meat section. Then it says I storm the coal supermarket with a bunch of activists dressed in black carrying TV screens. Here we are here showing it to the supermarket staff. It says look at this dairy cow being tortured and killed for milk. How horrific he said in the front of the checkouts. Mr. Carbstrong told a shopper watching the screen if you're paying for that you're paying for animal abuse. So they go on. Here's another quote. They quoted me. This is about that message thing you're telling us about you got to be vegan unless you like to torture animals for eggs. Why didn't Coles tell us that they sold tortured animal bodies? He questioned and then it shows and then there's actually a video. So it goes on animals are being abused and killed so you can eat their flesh. It's disgusting. People pay for dairy products. They're paying for the worst animal abuse on earth and so we did it in front of Ben and Jerry's inside the supermarkets and then Michelle they put in my disclaimer a disclaimer on the YouTube video urge viewers to ask themselves a question if they found this protest to us extreme aggressive or forceful. What's more extreme aggressive or forceful the disclaimer read forcefully breeding billions of animals for the sole purpose of forcing a knife into their necks and forcing them to die or asking people to stop paying for it to happen. I also want you to ask yourself this how quiet would you want us to be if you were the victim and then they've got you know images and video. So what do you think of this article in terms of that direct action? I think I think in terms of the action itself the action itself is incredibly powerful so you were and the group of people who you were with whether calm consistent there was no aggression anybody who perceived that to be aggressive well that's on them right there was no act of aggression there. Now the fact that this is the mail online you know they're not they're not well known for the accurate reporting are they they're not they're not well known for their their their audience is a certain kind of person so they're pandering to their audience they're selling that newspaper they're selling that advertising space to a certain kind of person a certain kind of person who and probably being a little bit judgmental who are not going to consider vegans or veganism or consider animal rights as anything that really needs to concern them. However when those kinds of action get into the media they spread with obviously with the event of the Internet they spread far far and wide way beyond the Daily Mail readership. Six thousand shares so there you go so how many of those six thousand shares were people who were supporting you probably half of them more than half of them who were actively saying look at this it's absolutely horrific it's so aggressive people are being abused when they're going out buying buying eggs in coals well a proportion of those who who see that person saying isn't that horrible are going to be perhaps at that moment in time in denial not ready to listen as we said before the ones shouting them or slowly the ones who are prepared to share it even though they think it's horrendous are the ones who were having that backfire however they're the ones I would argue at some point in the future that seed has been planted so the Daily Mail are actually doing the vegan movement a favor by reporting on it in such a way because they've actually used your words and used your used your message and it's there in black and white forever so that's even if even if one percent of those six thousand shares went away and thought about it those are people who not only have got that seed but they've also gone further because once somebody invest time invest their own thought process you know cognitively invest their own thought processes into it they don't need any further persuasion that they're there they're ready and the people that like everyone got the clear message in this like it was they didn't dress it up they didn't attack my character they reported this they I guess what they must have thought this action what I'm saying seems so outrageous to them that they don't dress it up they're like well just let's just quote exactly what he said you know and but what I said is logical if you follow it to it's if you follow the logical steps to what I'm pointing on the screen the video is showing the chicks being ground up alive so six thousand shares a lot of the people are going to read this quote for quote and go if you pay for dairy products you're paying for the worst animal abuse on earth but you know like this these these messages have to fit in sit in people's minds and let's just say they're scrolling through Facebook one day they see something about the dairy industry well let's go see what this is all about oh wow that's what that on that article was talking about and then they're scrolling again they see something else and this is how people get that initial seed planted and then this exactly psychological kind of phenomena can take place where the steps start to happen you know exactly so even though the Daily Mail might have reported on that as a form of you know sensationalism as a look at what the vegans are up to they have done the movement a massive favor by publicizing it and whether they meant to or not because that because you've been so consistent and clear and they've quoted you then that sits there in people's minds it sits there for people to come upon in six months time or whenever and read that message when they're ready to invest in it when they go away and learn more about it so whatever backfire you had from that and that that action and that subsequent reporting as we said those people who have the most extreme reaction are perhaps the people who are the most passionate in what appears to be in the opposite direction than we want but those are the ones who are prepared to invest the time in being outraged why are they being prepared to invest the time in being outraged is because they're covering up they're in denial right and once they've had time to go away calm down maybe months into the future and they are prepared to listen they'll come back to it but there will be people who read that article who'll say really is the dairy industry really that bad and I've never really thought about it before and we'll go and Google it and think oh my God and then they tell their friends they tell their friends so the Daily Mail have done have done the vegan movement a huge favor and I like it when they report on things because it's all in our favor really is and as long as you know the fact that you were your group were calm and clear holding up you know holding up the respectful distance from people and being very consistent and clear with the message that's all the Daily Mail could report if you've gone in there punching people then that would have completely defeated the object and you'd have ended up yeah in custody negative effect from it so you said you do criminal psychology yeah okay I've got a question for you and this is something that come up when people compare me to more moderate activists or people that are you know and it springs to mind that our message is the same it kind of like you know how you got like the mum and dad approach to parenting like dad you're in big trouble for running out onto that road mum look you shouldn't have ran out onto that road but come here darling okay same message different ones coddling ones no you know direct and with good cop bad cop in interrogation rooms you always got that one that sits back and he's like looking at him angrily tell us what's going on you shouldn't have done this you raped or you killed this woman didn't you and the good cop's going like look we can get you out of this we just want you to tell you you know what you did wasn't good and blah blah blah so can we apply these two dialogue like these two opposite sort of yin yang to vegan activism as well like does one support the other or can you have a mixture of both what do you think I think a mixture of both works really well and that the the person delivering the message is important the most important thing as I've said for the last hour yeah the most important thing is the message itself yeah but how it's delivered depends what's the most effective way to deliver the message depends on partly on the audience partly on the location so the setting the person who is more maybe more prepared to spend longer and to give a the good cop the good cop message they did work really well in a lecture room they'd work really well to go around and talk to people who were already seated waiting to listen whereas the bad cop who goes in right who is bang bang bang this this is that this is what you're gonna do you're gonna listen you know they're better in direct confrontation or in whether you know they've got five minutes to deliver a message but I think what I think it's great that we have within the vegan movement people who use varying styles it helps with diversity it helps to show that vegans come in all shapes and sizes age groups education levels background social you know social whatever and and also they are very different people yet they're all saying the same thing yeah and when when it all boils down to what is it they're actually saying well actually mum and dad is saying the same thing aren't they and the good cop and the bad cop want the same outcome yeah so they're delivering the message but in a slightly different way it kind of okay versus Malcolm you know they had the same kind of goal or some stages they had the same goal and it's kind of like they I heard this effect that the vegan couple made me aware of called the radical flank effect and saying that the radical flank effect is like happened in the civil rights movement there was a more radical civil rights activists which made MLK seem more moderate so the radical flank sort of worked with the more moderate of base activists to like get moved towards the same goal it's kind of reminds me of that yeah and you find that in other types of civil rights movement you'll find that in the gay rights movement for example and that 90s 90s there were two groups there was the kind of the people who were lobbying government and you know speaking at events and speaking at you know changing laws you know get trying to trying to get laws changed and then you had outrage who were the more radical who'd be out there with placards and they'd be out there protesting and they're complimented each other and those two movements used to argue and say oh you know going going standing there with your placard you're just making us look silly what you should really be doing is going lobbying politicians but actually at the end of the day they're all there for the same for the same goal for the same outcome they're the good cop and the bad cop so I think it's I think it's fine and civil rights movements throughout history have probably had the same kind of set where there'll be a radical element who are maybe to some of the less radical people I wish they'd just go away when you know sit down and talk to each other they want the same things and they do actually compliment each other because they're saying the same thing they're giving that consistent message across from different angles from different viewpoints but at the end of the day whether you're listening to the the outrageous radicals or whether you're listening to the people lobbying the politicians you're still getting the same message you're taking away the same message so it's the same with with the vegan movement I think yeah I've heard that in the sit-in movement when they did that sit in the first initial one other people of the same race were saying you're making us look bad you know we're trying we're out here trying to do this love based approach you're making us look bad this is too radical because they were getting spat on and things thrown at them in all of that kind of yeah symbolic of what's in the movement I think it's fine and I don't think it does a movement a disservice at all I think it I think it supports it complements a movement to have a section small section of people who are who are more radical than than the rest amazing can we talk about because what Paul Bashir was talking about was and what kind of what you're doing when you're having a conversation with someone you want them to change instead of leaving them with just a thought like I used to leave people with an open-ended question and get them thinking and goodbye I've got you to think now what we're trying to do more so focus more so on is leave them with a sense of accountability accountability that okay there is this stuff happening to animals it's you're causing it when you fund these industries you have to stop if you if not you are then responsible for what's happening to these animals via supply demand so that sense of accountability making them feel like the really the knife is in their hand so to speak using that as their driving force to motivate them to change what do you think of guilt being a part of that you know that accountability being a part of motivating change versus let's just say they like you you're persuasive you got them to think they really left the conversation feeling like I was a nice guy hmm I think it's exactly the tactic that vegan gains used with penguin that he he went out very forcefully especially and you could see it especially in the live stream that he was applying this is you you're responsible for this just because you're not the person doing the killing doesn't mean to say you're not responsible you're doing exactly what so young is doing by by eating the meat just because she's doing it on the screen and the thing still alive doesn't make you any less accountable for the death of the animal and it worked incredibly well in my opinion yeah so I think asking people to be accountable asking people are I think probably demanding that they that they be accountable is perhaps on the on the point where you think maybe asking them is better than demanding them so it could be like you say and well if people you know you have a general conversation if people did not consume meat demand would go down they can they've got to agree with that and then you say well if you stopped eating it it's just one person but if we all did our bit and stopped eating it then therefore there wouldn't be a demand so leave them with it's your choice it's up to you to make that change it's up to you it's it's in your it's in your hands it's your what you choose to buy determines how you behave next yeah so it's it's it's making them accountable but it's doing it in a way that is consistent with with the overall message yeah so there has to be logical steps to the reason that's right bill were accountable yeah to the accountability it all comes back to you after you've led them through these this is the slaughter of the animals yeah find a mile yeah that's right on you that's right if you went in there and with no backstory and you just went and demand you stop buying that meat now absolutely pointless yeah you've got to have that backstory you've got to have that conversation with them and you've got to lead them to that logical conclusion yeah and leaving them with that question you know it's it's up to you now what are you gonna do about it are you gonna make that choice yeah but that's come after that that that backstory yeah interesting it's all consistent so like for one of the things that keeps me vegan and is like I could never I could never go back on and do this to the animals so like when people say that you know this accountability this guilt as a driving force not to you know I feel a bit guilty here you know like people have this idea that that's a bad thing for change like this guilty feeling is a bad thing like if you've offered them a solution and you've made them feel guilty for continuing to fund this industry that they claim to be against once you've got to that stage wouldn't that guilt move people motivate people more than just let's just say accountability and you've led them to the conclusion they feel somewhat responsible they feel this guilt versus pandering to their every emotion and not giving them a strong message of accountability and responsibility like I just do you feel like that that one is much more motivational than the other or does it depend on the person to be honest I think a level of guilt is inevitable I think to make a change I think you have to feel bad because if somebody's gone through their entire life let's say they've got to the age of 25 consuming animal products and then they reach a point where they think I don't want to do this anymore well why do they feel that they've got to have that feeling of I've got to change I've got to do something and surely that's all tied up in guilt yeah surely it must be that I don't want to do this because I don't want to be responsible for it I don't want to do this because you know my my moral judgment tells me that eating an animal is eating a dead body and it might as well be a dead human as a dead cow what's the difference what's the difference horrible it's dead there has to be disgust and and guilt and so you have to feel bad to have that motivation to change yeah I don't see how trying to make somebody feel good about it is is effective no it's it's not effective yeah I agree with you so so that if pandering gets to the point where you've made someone comfortable with this action that this this lifestyle that they they if you if you get to the point where you're pandering so much so that they feel better about it I think that that's an error I think that's yeah yeah yeah it is an error it is an error it's talking to people who have never thought about veganism before if you're in that situation where you're planting that seed you're that you're that force that is planting that seed you have got to dig the hole so you've got to do something that initiates that first step and that first step cannot be done in a way that makes them feel good not job you've got it you've got to tell you've got to tell them things that are not good you're you're delivering a message of of death you're delivering a message and they can shoot the messenger they can they can turn it back on you and say you're the bad one but ultimately why are they feeling that it's because this thing is horrible they don't want to hear it actually why don't they want to hear it because it's horrible and it's becomes really it becomes a guilt trip because people once they realize they can't feel good they can't feel good about what they're doing yeah yeah if they know what they're doing is is is is death it's inevitable and it's like you don't want to make people feel bad for this but when you look at it through the animals eyes and the victims eyes it's a necessary it's a necessary thing it has to be necessary I think it is necessary yeah to deliver a message about billions of sentient creatures being slaughtered every year I I find it difficult to think of a way you could dress that up so it doesn't sound horrific yeah oh by the way billions of animals are killed every year even that in itself sounds it's like whoa really yeah you can't deliver that in a in a nice way whilst still being effective yeah yeah I agree that there has to be have to be unapologetic with the message but communication I think can be strategized I mean I look at myself and I go well I could have communicated the message better but as long as you're not you're not apologetic about the message itself you know you're strategizing on how to communicate that message I think they need to feel guilty they have to be motivated to change the message has to be unapologetic about exact talk to very direct about what's going on and how they're responsible for it so yeah like I see earthling Ed he has a knack of delivering the unapologetic animal rights message in his own with his own really intellectual communicative you know empathetic style but if you actually analyze his message it's it's really like explicitly a vegan message he's not yeah that's right he went away out from that sort of thing that's right yeah that's right so because Ed has got a he's very personable he's very likable he's very eloquent Ed works really well in situations where he's got an audience where he can talk to people who can sit down have a conversation but he's still delivering the same message yeah but you do when you do a five-minute interview where you're accused of interrupting someone you know it's the same message so although the delivery style is different the personality behind the message is different they are still the same message that someone can go away research for themselves yeah and can't refute it just can't refute it that's it so before we um before we go I just wanted to quickly talk about like let's just say you're the person delivering the message right and you're unapologetic in the way that you deliver it in the message itself is unapologetic you're saying that you're abusing these animals when you if you if you consume their body parts and you pay for their body parts you have to stop you know give make them feel accountable and someone says to you let's just say there's some other vegans or you know someone says to you well you're not perfect so you can't who are you to ask someone to make this moral change when you haven't been perfect in your life either which is a lot of my past isn't perfect and I'm about that your t-shirt might have some suffering down the line you cause crop deaths do veganism itself isn't perfect who are you to ask people to make moral decisions when you're not a saint what what do you think about that hmm I've made a lot of videos about these kinds of things like people come into my comment section talk about well vegans are responsible for crop deaths and so on and I think that there comes a time when you've got to say yes we know we live in a non vegan world we live in a situation we live in a time and a place where unfortunately farming methods kill animals and we can't we can't apologize for that we can say well we've got to as a movement move forward and think about ways that things like farming practices can be made more ethical yeah so it's perhaps more about not denying that there's no such thing as perfection that the fact that you know we're talking using technology that might have been produced with the use of children you know doing doing laborious tasks in sweatshops well actually what we've got to think about is that does not that's an issue in itself that's an issue that people can work to to change to farm to to create solutions to to move forward with that particular issue but when you're looking at if somebody's using those arguments against you then I I like it because it means that they're engaging on an ethical level so you can say to them I know that farming isn't perfect I know that crop deaths exist however if you think about it who are the majority of the crops fed to their fed to farm animals so it's not just vegans that are responsible for crop deaths it's not just vegans that are responsible for something that might occur during a manufacturing process however I'm really pleased that we're having a discussion about ethics I always come back to I'm really pleased that you're willing to have a discussion about ethics because the more we question unethical practices of any kind the more as a global community we can seek solutions for them or at least seek towards solutions for them what about you don't have a right Michelle like if they say you don't have a right like to speak the way you do unapologetically because you haven't been perfect and because you're not perfect but do you think that that negates the right do you think because no one is can truly be completely perfect that that negates your right to speak unapologetically for direct victims like animals and I always think look like like children or animals that are being tortured and killed because of someone direct choice like but they're saying you don't have a right because you're not perfect like you know what I mean like and even be in the movement there might be some vegans a lot of not all but some might say we you're not perfect either so why are you being so hard on them you know what I mean you don't the right to be hard on this person and to make them feel responsible and accountable because you know you haven't always been perfect kind of thing you know you can't have this militant you and militant stance yeah but I think it's about being being unapologetic and using it as a form of kudos that yes I've done things in my past that I'm not proud of but I've learnt from it so you might be in a situation now where you don't feel good about the meat that you're consuming you don't feel good about the way that you're feeling right now about animal slaughter yeah but what can we do together what can we do as a community what can we do as a group of people to to seek those solutions so I'm not perfect you're not perfect we don't have to be perfect however what we are focusing on is what we can change right now yeah I just go back to this is what we can change right now this is in our hands this is something that we have as as an individual we can choose not to buy meat we can choose not to buy milk unfortunately at this moment in time there's not a lot we can do about farmers using certain practices that result in rodents being killed during a harvest we can work with farmers to seek solutions moving forward but there is something you can do right now you can choose not to buy that steak you can choose not to eat that bacon so again bringing it back to them making them accountable for what they can change whilst acknowledging yeah we live in a non-vegan world none of us are perfect we can't possibly counteract every single possible line of discomfort or abuse that might have occurred at some point during our lifetime that we have indirectly contributed to by buying a laptop however there are certain things that we can do right now we can make certain choices whether it's consumer choices whether it's ethical choices choices of principle that we can do and also you can do so why aren't you doing it yeah it's kind of like a it's kind of like they're trying to make everyone else out as a hypocrite so that it doesn't so that everyone's on the same moral plane but actually analyze it if an ex-gang member was unapologetically speaking out for children they wouldn't do that to the person because they would appreciate that someone was there defending the children in the world from predators and evil people but for this read like as I've actually been asked from people to say hey Joey if you're an ex- gang member and used to deal drugs why don't you speak out against gang violence and drug dealing I would support you then stop talking about the cruelty in me and start talking about that it's kind of like they want to me to stop getting in their ear about this because they feel like this is something they're guilty of or something yeah but they what it's like well wait a second if I'm a hypocrite for asking you to stop paying for the cruelty of animals wouldn't I still be a hypocrite to gang members and drug dealers for asking them to stop doing that because I used to be one too so that I could win so what are you asking me not being not point out obvious immoral things that greatly you can greatly reduce your suffering and violence and eliminate the exploitation by like huge amount magnitude you can't measure the amount of you know crop deaths and resources and suffering in a steak comparative to a handful of rice it's just it's just a really bad comparison like why is it that because you know you have small imperfections or things that you've done wrong in your past and you you've tried to mend immoral trying to do better that you can't speak out about some obvious holocaust of innocent beings it's just same saying to me hmm yeah but it's it's the it's the same as you know they can't they can't counteract the message they can't deny the message so they've got to find something to make them feel better turn it back on you well why are they doing that because they feel guilty yeah why are they having to go through mental gymnastics to think about things that might be wrong in your life or that you've done wrong in the past why are they even taking that cognitive effort to do that yeah because they feel guilty because the message that you've told them is hit it is at some level hit home so the more they shout and scream and and try and turn the tables back keeping your message consistent doesn't change it all it does is tell them that hmm that's not work but avenues not worked and maybe it's me maybe it's me that's got the problem and they're not going to do that in front of you they're not going to do that right whilst you're there confronting them but at some point in the future they well might yeah thank you so much for joining me for this Michelle I really appreciate it and thanks for sharing your knowledge on social change and cycle different aspects of psychology I really appreciated it and thanks for all your work you do you're very welcome thank you and keep up the great work thank you very much take care see you bye