One thing this makes me think of is the desire for activists to use language to control the discussion around a topic. For example, people who are in favor of access to abortion call themselves "pro-choice" and people who are against it call themselves "pro-life". Conversely, they might call those who disagree with them "anti-choice" or "pro-murder".
While this sort of language might be useful for rallying those who are already believers, it makes it impossible to actually have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you, because you can't even agree on the terms to use.
Or to use another example near and dear to my heart, back in the day many animal activists would use slogans like "meat is murder". I agree with that 1000%, but saying that at best achieved nothing, and more likely acively hurt the movement. The vast, vast majority of people don't agree with that statement, and simply repeating it over and over will not change their minds. The only way to make an impact is to meet people much closer to where they're at.
Fortunately the animal advocacy movement has largely moved on from that, but many other movements are still obstinate about their language, even when it alienates and polarizes people who disagree with them.
Completely agree. Provocative language may feel good to use, but can be really counterproductive. I've found that the most helpful way to engage someone who doesn't ALREADY agree with you is to think about the issue in terms of *their* values. Animal rights folks might believe "meat is murder" but a more useful framing-- to bridge to another person-- might connect to the environment, or health, or even cost... Curious what framing you've found most productive for changing people's minds?
I think the most effective conversation I've seen is to relate this back to pets. For example, after someone learns about how pigs are treated on farms, you can try asking someone to think about how they'd feel if the same thing happened to their dog or cat.
Basically, the goal is to get them to realize that they _already_ agree that _some_ animals deserve to be treated as individuals, then to realize that farm animals are no different those animals.
That's a wonderful idea. Especially effective for people with more than one cat, or more than one dog, because that highlights how truly unique every animal's personality is!
Good stuff. This reminds me of some of the things Anand Giridharadas talks about in his book.
One thing this makes me think of is the desire for activists to use language to control the discussion around a topic. For example, people who are in favor of access to abortion call themselves "pro-choice" and people who are against it call themselves "pro-life". Conversely, they might call those who disagree with them "anti-choice" or "pro-murder".
While this sort of language might be useful for rallying those who are already believers, it makes it impossible to actually have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you, because you can't even agree on the terms to use.
Or to use another example near and dear to my heart, back in the day many animal activists would use slogans like "meat is murder". I agree with that 1000%, but saying that at best achieved nothing, and more likely acively hurt the movement. The vast, vast majority of people don't agree with that statement, and simply repeating it over and over will not change their minds. The only way to make an impact is to meet people much closer to where they're at.
Fortunately the animal advocacy movement has largely moved on from that, but many other movements are still obstinate about their language, even when it alienates and polarizes people who disagree with them.
Completely agree. Provocative language may feel good to use, but can be really counterproductive. I've found that the most helpful way to engage someone who doesn't ALREADY agree with you is to think about the issue in terms of *their* values. Animal rights folks might believe "meat is murder" but a more useful framing-- to bridge to another person-- might connect to the environment, or health, or even cost... Curious what framing you've found most productive for changing people's minds?
I think the most effective conversation I've seen is to relate this back to pets. For example, after someone learns about how pigs are treated on farms, you can try asking someone to think about how they'd feel if the same thing happened to their dog or cat.
Basically, the goal is to get them to realize that they _already_ agree that _some_ animals deserve to be treated as individuals, then to realize that farm animals are no different those animals.
That's a wonderful idea. Especially effective for people with more than one cat, or more than one dog, because that highlights how truly unique every animal's personality is!