"Bashing activists and groups behind protected tweets is completely cowardly. @garylfrancione"I have to say though, I think it's really cool when someone uses the Internet to reinforce silly masculinist stereotypes about bravado with tough-guy posturing. No, I'm only joking (seriously). I think this kind of show-boating and preening for the camera makes someone look like a passive-aggressive buffoon (no offense to buffoons), and I find that kind of bravado to be really unnecessary and unhelpful. Seriously, why not just challenge Francione to a professional wrestling match?
With Twitter, there's no need to add the @ part of the response to the end of the statement. Normally, when replying, the @ comes at the beginning. This is a common social media technique to make sure that everyone on your follower list sees the statement. In this case, it would have ensured that everyone following Erik will see him attack Francione publicly and personally. To be clear, I am not saying Erik is a buffoon, but I am saying this kind of act doesn't help anyone or anything (except for Erik's hurt feelings, I guess).
What's wrong with this kind of behaviour? First, it's disingenuous. Anyone can request to follow Francione (and anyone else on Twitter for that matter). Since I used the "secretly guarded magic" of following Francione, because I wanted to learn his "deep and highly secret thoughts", I can say that Francione was not bashing activists and groups. Having read Francione's tweets (along with the 800+ other people who follow Francione), the tweets were mostly innocuous, with some criticism, and a little infrequent ribbing here and there. I know people often take offense when someone makes a funny at their expense, but really, let's all grow up a little (no offense to actual children). There's a lot more at stake in animal slavery that the vanity of activists.
I know it hurts my feelings when people disagree with me, but critical disagreement and bashing are not the same thing. Attempts to bully other advocates into silence, whether it's by bravado, or rhetorical questions meant to silence with shame, or simply acting crazy is not helpful to nonhuman animals who rely on us to act like professional advocates. That means behaving like adults, and sometimes that means taking criticism and an even the occasional witticism.
Does this kind of behaviour help nonhuman animals in any way or does it make Erik Marcus feel better? Now, don't get me wrong. I think it's awesome that Erik managed to get his tongue out of KFC, BK and Chipotle's asses long enough to find his voice and say something directly. And I'm not saying he is not entitled to his feelings. When we're criticized, it's only normal to be miffed. But I think it is important, as an advocate, to show some moral character and restraint rather than just lashing out at people with this kind of machismo. It makes the lasher look foolish (and by extension, the movement look foolish). Instead, we should at least try to sincerely engage people. When someone offends me, I start by just asking for an apology and try to pursue whatever dialogue comes from that.
I know a lot of you will probably think, well, this is just the nature of our community. There's some truth here, and I am not trying to single Erik out for irrational and problematic behaviour towards other advocates. If I addressed everyone who behaves badly in our community as an individual, I'd be here all day, everyday. But when someone who has appointed himself to a leadership position in our community behaves this way, it's very problematic.
Why is this kind of bravado wrong? Well, it creates an atmosphere in which bullying other advocates is the way to address disagreement. It also reinforces (intentionally or not), heteronormative and sexist stereotypes of masculine bravado. It relies on a coded language to imply that Francione is somehow less manly because he's not willing to subject himself to the vicissitudes of everyone who wants to accuse and abuse him on Twitter. With this kind of tantrum, who can blame him?
But so long as we put up with this kind of behaviour, we'll have to put up with this kind of behaviour.
If someone doesn't like personal attacks, if someone doesn't feel they raise the level of discussion in our community, it raises a serious question about the beliefs they claim when they engage in behaviour that is the direct opposite of what they claim they value. That is, if someone really doesn't like personal attacks, then they really shouldn't engage in them. Regulationist advocates wilfully ignore things like reality, evidence and how regulation and an indirect approach leaves nonhuman animals in slavery all the time. But I guess when someone waters their inner child, parched and destitute, by showing them a little bit of attention, it's hard to pass up some retaliation.
Honestly, I think Erik is pretty confused about his beliefs in general. He claims to be vegan and yet actively promotes nonvegan food and businesses. He recently nearly whizzed himself (metaphorically speaking) in order to publicly praise a veg*n menu offering from Chipotle's, writing that �If you're not excited, you might not have a pulse.� In fact, of the BK Veggie, he said in 2002: "The Burger King Veggie Burger represents an unprecedented opportunity in the vegetarian movement's history but if the burger flops, it might set the growth of the movement back ten years." Yeah, not a hint of hyperbole there.
Further, in 2004, when BK added some egg white to the patty, he wrote: "Until now, if ordered without mayonnaise, the BK Veggie was essentially a vegan product. Although the bun contains a speck of dairy products..." Vegans don't eat dairy, Erik. But then, he keeps going, "But the inclusion of egg whites as a key ingredient in the patty has forced me to withdraw my support from the BK Veggie." So, dairy, in a completely unnecessary and trivial to avoid product, is fine for vegans, but egg whites, in a completely unnecessary and trivial to avoid product, is not? That's not confusing at all. It misrepresents veganism, which, by definition, involves not contributing to animal suffering and exploitation when it's possible and practical to do so.
Some advocates respond to criticisms of this kind of willy-nilly nonveganism with "it's not about personal purity!", but eating animal products and contributing to animal exploiters is hardly a matter of personal purity. First, animals have a right not to be used. When we fall all over ourselves to use them unnecessarily, we're doing something wrong. Second, it provides a poor role model for virtuous behaviour when advocates cheat (sorry, Tiger Woods) and it's even worse when advocates actively promote cheating. Finally, where do they think the money goes? It goes to a business whose entire lifeblood is predicated on exploiting more nonhuman animals.
But yeah, about the idea that it might set the movement back a decade if a vegetarian product from BK were to fail: 1) the BK Veggie did flop, 2) it didn't set the movement back ten years and 3) insofar as it drew people into subsidizing the marketing department of one of the world's most prominent exploiters of nonhuman animals, it subsidized a gross amount of animal use (and the attending suffering that stems from use). Nice work.
When I die, I'm going to donate my savings to a library for animal advocates populated with books on basic logic, basic sociology and basic political economy. Whether telling people that a nonvegan product is vegan, and encouraging them to rush out to subsidize a business whose sole purpose is to exploit no human animals for profit is the kind of thing that sets the movement back is an exercise I'll leave to the reader (hint: if it doesn't set the movement back, it's a very lucky accident and testimony that people have the good sense not to take Erik Marcus very seriously).
As a general matter, Erik also defends an 'indirect' approach that involves taking pains to not directly educate people about veganism or the moral necessity of abolition. While I do not favor being confrontational generally, that's not the same thing as a refusal to educate people directly. What's surprising and disappointing is that when someone let's him know that another advocate has disagreed with him somewhere on the Internet, he's all over it directly getting in there and directly personally attacking.
Huh. I don't know what this says about Erik's priorities. I only wish he showed the same SIMMERING PASSION (albeit, restrained, principled and rationally guided) for the justice we owe nonhuman animals.
In closing, it may seem like a certain propensity for tantrums and misguidedness is required to be vegan, but I can assure you all that that's not the case. It doesn't matter how larger your virtual biceps are, and it doesn't require a lot of heavy breathing and pouting when someone disagrees. It only requires you to take the rights of nonhuman animals seriously and act accordingly (and that means not using them, and that means going and staying vegan and promoting the abolition of their slavery). If you are not vegan, you should go vegan today. If you are already vegan, but want to learn more about the abolitionist approach, you can do so from my other articles or visit Gary Francione's Web site: www.abolitionistapproach.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment