Your Hot Take Isn’t Helping
Three questions every vegan should ask before they speak.
Lately, I’ve noticed more vegans publicly diving into complex, divisive issues.
Many of them unrelated to animals.
And maybe I’m not one to judge, I’ve done it too.
Why I stepped away from divisive topics
A while ago I started a, now inactive, second YouTube channel specifically to discuss other topics outside of the vegan world.
I tried to keep things nuanced, explore differing viewpoints, and enjoy the process.
It went well and I enjoyed it, but I noticed something troubling.
Some topics are more divisive than others, but even the milder topics I discussed sparked backlash within my immediate vegan community and sometimes further afield.
I would sometimes even receive harsh backlash on what I felt were small or insignificant comments, the odd quip said in passing.
That can of course happen anytime you speak publicly.
Not everyone will agree with or like what you have to say, that’s something anyone in the public eye needs to accept.
But if we’re going to take the risk of putting our opinions out there, doesn’t it make sense to only do it when it actually matters? When it can have an impact?
My passion is creating a better world for animals, so why would I continue speaking on these other topics if there’s even the slight chance of it hindering that goal?
For me, I couldn’t see a reason to continue taking these sorts of risks by sharing opinions that have nothing to do with animals.
Or even if an opinion is about animals, but is highly controversial or divisive with no real world impact.
I don’t see much reason to discuss it in a public forum.
Discussing these sorts of things is entertaining and thought-provoking, but at what cost?
I made the decision to stop posting to my second channel, and refocus.
Activist, philosopher or political commentator?
I had to ask myself honestly, am I an animal activist, a philosopher, or a political commentator?
Doing all three is possible, but something has to give.
And as is the case in most of society, when animals are involved and something has to give, it’s usually animals that lose out.
Time, energy, and public trust are limited currencies.
The more divisive I am in the animal movement, the more issues I cause for our movement, and in turn, the more issues I create for animals.
To help me stay on track, I’ve created a sort of checklist for deciding whether to discuss or post about a topic publicly.
A checklist that keeps me focused
Here’s the three-part checklist I now use:
Is it relevant to my goal?
My goal is to create positive change for animals in my short time alive, and I think the biggest and most optimistic target is to try and impact factory farming and the food system.
If it doesn’t align, it doesn’t make the cut.
Is it actionable?
Can people actually do something about it? Something actually achievable in the short or long-term?
Is it just theoretical, a thought-experiment, a principle of some sort with no real-world application?
Is the outcome positive?
Is the outcome likely to help or hinder progress towards my goal?
Will it create unity, positive change, and inspire, or will it divide, create negativity or hostility with no long-term strategy?
When I apply this strictly to my work, it helps me focus on what’s likely to be the best use of my time to change the world in as short a time as possible.
Of course, I don’t know what strategy will work and what will fail.
There’s trial and error and a lot of learning to be done.
But I think this checklist at least helps avoid some pitfalls.
It helps avoid virtue signalling.
By ‘virtue signalling,’ I mean speech that prioritises public moral display over meaningful strategy or real-world impact.
Unfortunately in recent years there has been a lot of this on social media.
When speaking out might do more harm than good
I don’t want to give a real world example to avoid distractions, so I’ll make up an example.
Imagine a civil war over resources is happening in a country on the opposite side of the world. It’s harsh and bloody.
The country is splitting in two, the scenes are heartbreaking.
There’s a social media propaganda war going on, and people are quickly taking sides.
Experts and famous podcasters are debating it.
There aren’t really clear political divides, just as many people are on one side as the other, and it’s becoming very heated.
Does this fit the checklist for a public discussion?
I’ll run the checklist for me personally.
Is it relevant to my goal?
I care deeply about any innocent who is harmed or killed for the sake of political battles between governments, but no this is not relevant to my goal.
It has nothing to do with changing the food system in the West and trying to create change for animals here.
Is it actionable?
As it’s on the other side of the world, and it’s devolved into a full on civil war, there’s little to nothing I or anyone around me could do to stop it.
Donating to help the innocents on the ground is an option, but ultimately posting anything else other than a plea for donations likely wouldn’t help.
Some could argue that raising awareness does help, but without anything actionable, I struggle to see how.
Bearing in mind that in our example it’s already an issue in the public consciousness with expert engagement, I struggle to see what a regular member of the public could bring to the table.
Is the outcome positive?
The likely outcome of publicly discussing this is division.
As it’s a hot button topic that people are debating and fighting over, it would likely spark hostilities that would ultimately harm animals by dividing the movement/community.
I would care about the innocent people suffering.
I would discuss the issue with friends, family, and potentially donate to an organisation helping people with vegan food, but I likely wouldn’t discuss it publicly.
Of course, not everything is black and white.
If someone has a long-term strategy that includes public awareness, and isn’t just virtue signalling, then of course that’s a valid strategy.
But at what cost?
As a vegan, is it worth causing massive division within the animal movement, hindering progress for animals, to raise awareness for an issue that already has awareness?
An issue that plenty of experts are already publicly speaking on?
Not all controversy is created equal
There is constructive controversy and destructive controversy.
Constructive controversy usually has a positive, long-term goal.
It’s controversy with a plan.
Destructive controversy generally serves the ego, not the cause.
It can have a goal, but the goal tends to be to increase notoriety or fame.
At times, I feel the people being destructive aren’t even consciously aware of their addiction to attention.
(Potentially) constructive controversy
A fiercely debated topic is the comparison of the use of gas chambers in the meat industry with the use of gas chambers in The Holocaust.
Some believe this is destructive, some believe it’s constructive controversy.
I think it can be both, depending on how you discuss it.
One-to-one conversations allow for nuance.
There is a way to have this controversial discussion but in a way that’s level-headed and reasonable, rather than say shouting something like,
“This is worse than The Holocaust!”
A great way to do it is to ask questions that allow the other person the opportunity to make the comparison, for example,
“Can you think of another time we used gas chambers for killing?”
It’s uncomfortable, but most people hold emotion for this stain on human history (understandably).
Allowing them to connect the dots is more powerful, and constructive, than charging in like a bull in a China shop.
Of course, some people will still react by taking offence as a way to dismiss uncomfortable truths.
Others may be responding from genuine pain, it’s important to distinguish the two.
But I think it can be done constructively, in a way that’s powerful and respectful, without falling into shock tactics.
Does making this comparison pass our test for public use?
It’s relevant to our goal as it concerns animals in the food industry.
It’s actionable, encouraging people to stop buying meat.
It can have a positive outcome, if done carefully.
Destructive controversy
Now an example of something that will likely always be destructively controversial.
Here’s an intentionally extreme thought-experiment; imagine someone holds the belief that they would sooner kill a thousand babies than eat an animal.
They value the life of one pig, one cow, or one chicken as more than a thousand humans.
To me, there is no way that person could make this controversial statement publicly and it be constructive.
It’s about as destructive as you can get.
Let’s run it through our test.
It’s relevant to our goal as it concerns animals in the food industry.
It’s actionable, encouraging people to stop buying meat.
But the outcome would be negative for the vast majority of people who hear this message.
Most people, vegans included, would find a statement like this to be inflammatory and insensitive.
Some of the more emotionally charged vegans might appreciate a statement like this, but is it really worth it?
The mental image of a vegan killing a thousand babies for any reason would not be helpful.
Meat eaters especially would think this person had lost their marbles, and would likely be dissuaded from taking vegans seriously.
This destructive controversy leans more into philosophy.
It’s a thought experiment, one with the potential for deeply negative real-world consequences.
Some might say,
“It’s a valid opinion, why shouldn’t this person share it?”
I would say this person needs to decide if they’re a philosopher or an activist.
You can be both, but sometimes you have to choose which role takes precedence, because the costs of certain philosophical expressions fall on animals.
Sure, you could say it’s a valid opinion. But not every opinion belongs on a megaphone.
Have you found yourself pulled into these public discussions too? What’s your own checklist?
When you read my Substack articles, you’re getting a window into my evolving thoughts—some freshly formed, others rooted in years of experience. I don’t claim to have all the answers (even if it seems that way at times), and I invite you to engage with my ideas as just that: thoughts worth considering.
Gary Yourofsky needs to read your checklist... Great work, David, I'm going to use this checklist myself!
David, Thank you for this thoughtful piece — it’s given me a great deal to reflect on, especially as someone who often finds his moral compass pulled toward the intersections of issues.
I care deeply about animal welfare — it’s the beating heart of my activism and spiritual practice. But I also find myself drawn to what I can only call the patterns of cruelty in our world. When I see systemic violence toward animals, I also see echoes of that same violence in our politics, language, and in our treatment of the vulnerable across many domains.
Sometimes I speak to those connections — not to be divisive, but to unify my ethic. To me, they're part of a moral fabric. I understand that for some, this can appear off-topic or even alienating. But for me, it feels like an expression of integrity — of applying compassion in all directions.
That said, I hear the wisdom in your call for intentionality. The idea of a checklist — Is it relevant? Is it actionable? Is the outcome likely to be positive? — is helpful. And I would add: Will it help others see the interconnectedness of compassion without closing their hearts?
Sometimes, the “controversy” I risk is meant to invite, not provoke. To say: cruelty isn't limited to species. Nor is kindness. If I bring political or social issues into a conversation about animals, it’s not because I want to dilute the message — but because I want to elevate it to the realm of universal care.
I so respect your clarity and focus. I’m still learning how to balance clarity with complexity. And I deeply appreciate thoughtful voices like yours helping me refine that balance with humility and grace.