Me neither until a few years ago! I recommend reading Tobias's book "How To Create A Vegan World", that's what started me off looking into the abolitionist movement and other movements. A great read.
Excellent argument. Your point that someone can only use those semi-analogies because people already won that fight by being strategic and pragmatic deserves the highest praise a scholar can offer about an idea: I never thought of that before, but as soon as I read it I had no doubt it was correct. Indeed, I was just about to send out a post with some relevance to that, and now I at least need to write a postscript to it citing your point.
What came to mind for me upon reading the opprobrium you cited was something rather less important: Many of the analogies are not genuine analogies. Being non-vegan (acting in a particular way, perhaps because the costs of acting differently are too great) is quite different from being racist (thinking/believing something bad, which offers no material benefit). Someone can be non-vegan and genuinely believe that everyone being vegan would be best, whereas racism does not work that way. A bit differently, at made clearer by your main thesis, being non-vegan (a fairly passive failing in our society) is very different from engaging in domestic abuse (a deliberate act that requires less effort to not do than to do). The reason it is an unacceptable act is covered by your thesis.
Though what came to mind even before that was the reminder that I stopped interacting in forums that attracted card-carrying vegans long ago, because of exactly this behavior. That, of course, goes to the much simpler and commonly stated tactical advice of it being stupid to alienate most of your potential allies (which you also covered).
Thank you for your support and for sharing such detailed thoughts, I enjoyed reading them. Your comment about racism was very interesting, a good point that could've been part of this article.
Thought-provoking post as always, David. I think it's a mistake to refer to vegans as a single, homogeneous group. We all came to veganism in different ways - some in response to slaughterhouse footage, others for health concerns or because they loved the food. And in the same way, we need a variety of approaches to activism, both welfarist and abolitionist.
It's true that there are many paths to veganism. I think we sometimes forget that many people who hold vegan values and oppose animal exploitation got there through first eating plant-based for things like environmentalism, health or diet. It's much easier to convince someone of the ethics when they're already doing most if not all of the practice.
This is one of the most logically sound and historically grounded pieces of writing I’ve read on this issue in a long time.
You’ve perfectly articulated a profound psychological blind spot in modern advocacy: using the hard-won luxury of past victories to condemn the very blueprints that achieved them. It is easy to demand moral absolutism today regarding racism or sexism because those historic, messy, compromise-laden movements succeeded so thoroughly in shifting the social baseline. Applying 2026 standards to a movement currently sitting in its 1787 infancy isn't just ahistorical; it’s a recipe for permanent stagnation.
To build on your point about the animal movement being in its infancy (where over 95% of the population actively participates in the harm), vegans simply must confront how animal exploitation is uniquely viewed by the public.
In my own writing on speciesism and intersectionality, I often point out that advocacy against sexism, ableism, or racism doesn’t break into people's homes, turn over the dinner table, and empty the fridge of their most prized possessions—pieces of meat. That is what recognising animal rights asks of the average person. Because of this massive friction, animal rights cannot afford to be an isolated, hostile incoming on the social justice radar.
When purists demand “message isolation”, insisting we only talk about the animal's intrinsic right to not be exploited, they are inadvertently hobbling the movement with a severe lack of urgency. They treat human psychology as we wish it were (vessels of pure, unprompted moral virtue), rather than dealing with humans as they actually are.
If a non-vegan podcaster, tech CEO, or environmentalist opens a door because they care about climate change, topsoil erosion, or pandemic risks, that isn’t "instrumentalising" or devaluing the animal. It is simply meeting human psychology where it is. If we refuse to mention the environmental catastrophes of animal agriculture "for the animals' sake," we allow animal rights to remain a fringe interest of the marginalised woke.
We face a tough operational choice: Do we want the moral purity of a tiny, ideologically unblemished vanguard, or do we want strategic abolition?
Like you, I don't like the messiness of compromise or celebrating non-vegan allies. As you say, it stings. But the animals don't need our hands to stay clean; they need the slaughterhouses to close. Thank you for reminding the movement that real-world efficacy must trump philosophical vanity.
Absolutely. I work in animal rights and every time we have a successful anti-fur or wild-animal skins campaign, there are some (a minority, luckily) who start going on with "but what about leather". Incremental change is the only way to make change happen. There is no other way. It's either small, steady, incremental steps or status quo.
Thank you for the read. I recently learned there is this divide between abolitionists and so called welfarists.
This really highlights the ultimate dilemma shared by almost every major social justice movement in history: Do we accept incremental wins to reduce suffering right now, or do we demand total liberation because anything less condones the system?
Initially, it feels like animal welfarists and abolitionists have the same end goal. But history shows why this split is so fierce. If we look at human rights, incremental compromises did build the legal infrastructure for equality. Yet oppression is highly adaptive. Legally, Western countries have dismantled institutional discrimination, but racism, sexism, homophobia, and femicide haven't vanished—they’ve just mutated to fit the modern landscape. We see this today with the active resurgence of far-right, reactionary politics pushing back against progressive gains.
This justifies the abolitionist fear: if you only change the rules of an exploitative system without changing the underlying mindset, the abuse just takes a different shape. Making the cages bigger can inadvertently make society feel comfortable enough to keep eating meat forever.
However, veganism might have a unique evolutionary advantage that past movements didn't. Historically, it was strictly a moral stance against speciesism. Today, it’s mutating into something broader. It is no longer just an ethical crusade, it’s backed by the existential realities of the climate crisis and public health.
Even if the moral argument fails to convince the masses, ecological survival and self-interest might force the shift anyway. Maybe the way forward isn't just debating the ethics of compromise, but leaning into this multi-pronged mutation to fundamentally dismantle the infrastructure of animal agriculture from all angles? But even if we successfully force that shift through law and necessity, the core worry remains: will the morals actually follow, or will the underlying mindset just find a new way to mutate?
Even if your arguments are realistic and possibly tools for winning strategies it remains the dilemma on a moral level you can't dismiss so easily. First you'll never know if your compromises will ever have an impact in the long terms and most importantly how can you handle that torment inside your own soul for having done terribly to animals? Yes certainly you can be confronted to non vegans and be no enemies but you can't ever forget participating in harming the victims..dirty hands remain so and for a very long time. We are not just rational beings but spiritual too. Our spirit demands attention and care no blood and suffering and for no reason ever...
I now think we have a new problem, With all the wars going on people somehow believe human life does not matter any more. So if human life has no value where does that leave animal life?. Veganism has taken a hard knock with the wars, politics and greed. Talking about someone who has fallen off of the wagon should be put way down the list now and let us put animal way above everything else, as it they should be, the fight is always about the animals never ever forget that.
Great to read an article that learns from the past of other successful movements. It seems like in depth studies on the history of movements against violence and oppression of humans and animals can be so helpful in us understanding how to get more people on our 'side', raise awareness and win rights for all. Although technology is vastly changing, it doesn't mean the approaches taken can't evolve.
Also really appreciate that you took to time to acknowledge how hard it is to step back and take an incremental route when you're so incredibly passionate and horrified by what is going on. I've never people more passionate than those in the animal rights movement and it's something that takes some time to get your head around for sure.
Your 'soft' approach has helped me consider where I feel comfortable in my actions and reminded me that there is nothing wrong with taking a 'suffragist' action in a world of 'suffragette' action. Thank you!
Thanks for this grounded contribution to such an important discussion. As I read this post, I had a similar thought to the commenter who needs a vagina anyway: that it is perhaps beneficial to the movement that a range of responses are voiced. Even though certain views are known to alienate many people in unhelpful ways, there are surely some who are swayed by comparisons that invite them to think about normalised practices through new lenses. At the very least these invitations might plant seeds in the minds of some that flourish at a later point in time. Additionally, these expressions of understandable anger and despair keep discussions alive by prompting thoughtful responses such as this post. Thanks again, David.
Along the same lines, one could ask whether vegans should boycott all alternatives to animal products currently marketed by companies that also sell meat products, such as store brands... whether vegans should systematically reject cultured meats because a significant portion of their funding also comes from companies specializing in the production, processing, and marketing of animal products... at the risk of slowing down, or even completely halting, their development... forgetting in passing that the vast majority of today's vegans were omnivores, consuming all types of animal products before realizing their "mistakes," and that a significant number remained vegetarian for a more or less extended period before finally giving up the cheeses and eggs they so enjoyed... demanding an immediate "all or nothing" from 8 billion current humans, who consume animal products daily, is simply unrealistic if we can't offer them any reliable alternatives in terms of taste and price...
Damn I had absolutely no knowledge about that aspect of the abolitionist movement. Thanks for writing all this up, that's pretty mindblowing
Me neither until a few years ago! I recommend reading Tobias's book "How To Create A Vegan World", that's what started me off looking into the abolitionist movement and other movements. A great read.
Great read :-)
Thanks Tobias, appreciate your support!
Such an interesting read, it has made me really consider a new perspective! Thank you
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts, I love that I was able to put a new perspective on the table for you 🙏🏼
Excellent argument. Your point that someone can only use those semi-analogies because people already won that fight by being strategic and pragmatic deserves the highest praise a scholar can offer about an idea: I never thought of that before, but as soon as I read it I had no doubt it was correct. Indeed, I was just about to send out a post with some relevance to that, and now I at least need to write a postscript to it citing your point.
What came to mind for me upon reading the opprobrium you cited was something rather less important: Many of the analogies are not genuine analogies. Being non-vegan (acting in a particular way, perhaps because the costs of acting differently are too great) is quite different from being racist (thinking/believing something bad, which offers no material benefit). Someone can be non-vegan and genuinely believe that everyone being vegan would be best, whereas racism does not work that way. A bit differently, at made clearer by your main thesis, being non-vegan (a fairly passive failing in our society) is very different from engaging in domestic abuse (a deliberate act that requires less effort to not do than to do). The reason it is an unacceptable act is covered by your thesis.
Though what came to mind even before that was the reminder that I stopped interacting in forums that attracted card-carrying vegans long ago, because of exactly this behavior. That, of course, goes to the much simpler and commonly stated tactical advice of it being stupid to alienate most of your potential allies (which you also covered).
Thank you for your support and for sharing such detailed thoughts, I enjoyed reading them. Your comment about racism was very interesting, a good point that could've been part of this article.
Thanks. I think this changes my mind - I still have to reflect but I think I'm convinced.
Let me know if you think of anything interesting after some reflection, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts!
Thought-provoking post as always, David. I think it's a mistake to refer to vegans as a single, homogeneous group. We all came to veganism in different ways - some in response to slaughterhouse footage, others for health concerns or because they loved the food. And in the same way, we need a variety of approaches to activism, both welfarist and abolitionist.
It's true that there are many paths to veganism. I think we sometimes forget that many people who hold vegan values and oppose animal exploitation got there through first eating plant-based for things like environmentalism, health or diet. It's much easier to convince someone of the ethics when they're already doing most if not all of the practice.
Hi David,
This is one of the most logically sound and historically grounded pieces of writing I’ve read on this issue in a long time.
You’ve perfectly articulated a profound psychological blind spot in modern advocacy: using the hard-won luxury of past victories to condemn the very blueprints that achieved them. It is easy to demand moral absolutism today regarding racism or sexism because those historic, messy, compromise-laden movements succeeded so thoroughly in shifting the social baseline. Applying 2026 standards to a movement currently sitting in its 1787 infancy isn't just ahistorical; it’s a recipe for permanent stagnation.
To build on your point about the animal movement being in its infancy (where over 95% of the population actively participates in the harm), vegans simply must confront how animal exploitation is uniquely viewed by the public.
In my own writing on speciesism and intersectionality, I often point out that advocacy against sexism, ableism, or racism doesn’t break into people's homes, turn over the dinner table, and empty the fridge of their most prized possessions—pieces of meat. That is what recognising animal rights asks of the average person. Because of this massive friction, animal rights cannot afford to be an isolated, hostile incoming on the social justice radar.
When purists demand “message isolation”, insisting we only talk about the animal's intrinsic right to not be exploited, they are inadvertently hobbling the movement with a severe lack of urgency. They treat human psychology as we wish it were (vessels of pure, unprompted moral virtue), rather than dealing with humans as they actually are.
If a non-vegan podcaster, tech CEO, or environmentalist opens a door because they care about climate change, topsoil erosion, or pandemic risks, that isn’t "instrumentalising" or devaluing the animal. It is simply meeting human psychology where it is. If we refuse to mention the environmental catastrophes of animal agriculture "for the animals' sake," we allow animal rights to remain a fringe interest of the marginalised woke.
We face a tough operational choice: Do we want the moral purity of a tiny, ideologically unblemished vanguard, or do we want strategic abolition?
Like you, I don't like the messiness of compromise or celebrating non-vegan allies. As you say, it stings. But the animals don't need our hands to stay clean; they need the slaughterhouses to close. Thank you for reminding the movement that real-world efficacy must trump philosophical vanity.
Absolutely. I work in animal rights and every time we have a successful anti-fur or wild-animal skins campaign, there are some (a minority, luckily) who start going on with "but what about leather". Incremental change is the only way to make change happen. There is no other way. It's either small, steady, incremental steps or status quo.
A great read. We have to do what is best for the animals and that means accepting allies, even if they are not vegan.
Thank you for the read. I recently learned there is this divide between abolitionists and so called welfarists.
This really highlights the ultimate dilemma shared by almost every major social justice movement in history: Do we accept incremental wins to reduce suffering right now, or do we demand total liberation because anything less condones the system?
Initially, it feels like animal welfarists and abolitionists have the same end goal. But history shows why this split is so fierce. If we look at human rights, incremental compromises did build the legal infrastructure for equality. Yet oppression is highly adaptive. Legally, Western countries have dismantled institutional discrimination, but racism, sexism, homophobia, and femicide haven't vanished—they’ve just mutated to fit the modern landscape. We see this today with the active resurgence of far-right, reactionary politics pushing back against progressive gains.
This justifies the abolitionist fear: if you only change the rules of an exploitative system without changing the underlying mindset, the abuse just takes a different shape. Making the cages bigger can inadvertently make society feel comfortable enough to keep eating meat forever.
However, veganism might have a unique evolutionary advantage that past movements didn't. Historically, it was strictly a moral stance against speciesism. Today, it’s mutating into something broader. It is no longer just an ethical crusade, it’s backed by the existential realities of the climate crisis and public health.
Even if the moral argument fails to convince the masses, ecological survival and self-interest might force the shift anyway. Maybe the way forward isn't just debating the ethics of compromise, but leaning into this multi-pronged mutation to fundamentally dismantle the infrastructure of animal agriculture from all angles? But even if we successfully force that shift through law and necessity, the core worry remains: will the morals actually follow, or will the underlying mindset just find a new way to mutate?
Wow, great read. You've changed my mind on this. Thank you.
Even if your arguments are realistic and possibly tools for winning strategies it remains the dilemma on a moral level you can't dismiss so easily. First you'll never know if your compromises will ever have an impact in the long terms and most importantly how can you handle that torment inside your own soul for having done terribly to animals? Yes certainly you can be confronted to non vegans and be no enemies but you can't ever forget participating in harming the victims..dirty hands remain so and for a very long time. We are not just rational beings but spiritual too. Our spirit demands attention and care no blood and suffering and for no reason ever...
I now think we have a new problem, With all the wars going on people somehow believe human life does not matter any more. So if human life has no value where does that leave animal life?. Veganism has taken a hard knock with the wars, politics and greed. Talking about someone who has fallen off of the wagon should be put way down the list now and let us put animal way above everything else, as it they should be, the fight is always about the animals never ever forget that.
Great to read an article that learns from the past of other successful movements. It seems like in depth studies on the history of movements against violence and oppression of humans and animals can be so helpful in us understanding how to get more people on our 'side', raise awareness and win rights for all. Although technology is vastly changing, it doesn't mean the approaches taken can't evolve.
Also really appreciate that you took to time to acknowledge how hard it is to step back and take an incremental route when you're so incredibly passionate and horrified by what is going on. I've never people more passionate than those in the animal rights movement and it's something that takes some time to get your head around for sure.
Your 'soft' approach has helped me consider where I feel comfortable in my actions and reminded me that there is nothing wrong with taking a 'suffragist' action in a world of 'suffragette' action. Thank you!
Thanks for this grounded contribution to such an important discussion. As I read this post, I had a similar thought to the commenter who needs a vagina anyway: that it is perhaps beneficial to the movement that a range of responses are voiced. Even though certain views are known to alienate many people in unhelpful ways, there are surely some who are swayed by comparisons that invite them to think about normalised practices through new lenses. At the very least these invitations might plant seeds in the minds of some that flourish at a later point in time. Additionally, these expressions of understandable anger and despair keep discussions alive by prompting thoughtful responses such as this post. Thanks again, David.
Along the same lines, one could ask whether vegans should boycott all alternatives to animal products currently marketed by companies that also sell meat products, such as store brands... whether vegans should systematically reject cultured meats because a significant portion of their funding also comes from companies specializing in the production, processing, and marketing of animal products... at the risk of slowing down, or even completely halting, their development... forgetting in passing that the vast majority of today's vegans were omnivores, consuming all types of animal products before realizing their "mistakes," and that a significant number remained vegetarian for a more or less extended period before finally giving up the cheeses and eggs they so enjoyed... demanding an immediate "all or nothing" from 8 billion current humans, who consume animal products daily, is simply unrealistic if we can't offer them any reliable alternatives in terms of taste and price...