permabulk
Newcomer
There are all kinds of non-vegan people, so all kinds of activist approaches can work. Anger shows that something is important. Some people respond well to gory images of animal abuse. And shame definitely does positively alter some people's behavior.
Honestly, if someone is going to "write off" a message about suffering and exploitation simply because the message isn't delivered in one's ideal fashion, the problem is not the messenger. One could be the nastiest, most judgmental, insulting, and shocking activist on Earth, but if the messages is "don't murder children," most people would still agree with the message. The problem is that people don't take the message seriously enough, whether they don't care at all or they care about their hurt egos or retaining their animal-consuming habits more.
Now if you are talking about people who aren't really trying to do vegan activism and are simply using veganism as a pretext to disrespect and psychologically manipulate others...well that's too bad, but it's also not a legitimate reason for people to ignore or reject the idea of veganism; in fact it doesn't reflect on veganism at all because it ultimately doesn't have anything to do with veganism. Vegans can be people who do something positive but still have shitty personality traits or ineffective approaches, just like anyone else can. We do not have to be paragons of humanity just for veganism to be taken seriously.
Discussion of optimal (and sub-optimal) methods of activism is fine, but I think that legitimizing such excuses for people's rejection of veganism is generally unproductive. What I mean is that non-vegans don't reject veganism because vegans are assholes; non-vegans reject veganism because they themselves ultimately decide to not become vegans. Nobody is responsible for that decision except the person who makes it. So I see no benefit to implying that vegans are turning people off of veganism because we literally do not have the power to make that decision for independent individuals; we can only present the idea better or worse.
Honestly, if someone is going to "write off" a message about suffering and exploitation simply because the message isn't delivered in one's ideal fashion, the problem is not the messenger. One could be the nastiest, most judgmental, insulting, and shocking activist on Earth, but if the messages is "don't murder children," most people would still agree with the message. The problem is that people don't take the message seriously enough, whether they don't care at all or they care about their hurt egos or retaining their animal-consuming habits more.
Now if you are talking about people who aren't really trying to do vegan activism and are simply using veganism as a pretext to disrespect and psychologically manipulate others...well that's too bad, but it's also not a legitimate reason for people to ignore or reject the idea of veganism; in fact it doesn't reflect on veganism at all because it ultimately doesn't have anything to do with veganism. Vegans can be people who do something positive but still have shitty personality traits or ineffective approaches, just like anyone else can. We do not have to be paragons of humanity just for veganism to be taken seriously.
Discussion of optimal (and sub-optimal) methods of activism is fine, but I think that legitimizing such excuses for people's rejection of veganism is generally unproductive. What I mean is that non-vegans don't reject veganism because vegans are assholes; non-vegans reject veganism because they themselves ultimately decide to not become vegans. Nobody is responsible for that decision except the person who makes it. So I see no benefit to implying that vegans are turning people off of veganism because we literally do not have the power to make that decision for independent individuals; we can only present the idea better or worse.