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.
I tell people that when you share non-animal political thoughts in animal rights spaces (where your social media could be an animal rights space if you are an activist), you run the gambit of alienating someone and inadvertently excluding them from coming out and making a difference for animals. Is that worth it? Most say "no". You are saying "no". I say "no". I wish more people would put this into practice!
Edit: Meant to say, love this post! I like that you are getting more practical and not working in the world of idealism, but what makes material differences for animals is what should be prioritized.
Your reasoning makes sense, and I think it's totally fine for you to do what you feel is right for you, but I also think that there are other equally valid perspectives.
I don't agree with your definition of virtue signalling as: ‘virtue signalling,’ I mean speech that prioritises public moral display over meaningful strategy or real-world impact.
I think the term 'virtue signalling' should be reserved for disingenuous moral display in which the person doing the virtue signalling is clearly doing so as a self-publicity exercise rather than out of sincere concern. Anyone expressing sincerely-felt concern is doing a lot more than virtue signalling - they are expressing a sincerely held conviction.
It is rarely possible to accurately measure real-world impact in activism. Cases where it is possible to do so (e.g. someone going vegan as a result of watching a video) are the exception rather than the rule.
Whilst some vegans many only care about animals, many vegans are, first and foremost, compassionate people who care about all life and want to ameliorate all suffering. Their compassion doesn't have walls. By speaking up against, for example, the unspeakable crimes being committed against children in Gaza, they are demonstrating that they are compassionate people and that veganism is a movement driven by compassion which, in turn, may encourage the many hundreds of millions of people who care about children in Gaza to become vegan.
I actually became vegan (almost 10 years ago now) partly because of Gaza. When I saw the misery being inflicted upon the people of Gaza (even long before the current genocide) it reminded me of the suffering that is inflicted upon animals in factory farming, and I realised that I couldn't support either. If I had heard vegans speaking up on this issue it may have encouraged me to go vegan even sooner.
So I do think that whilst I totally respect your right to follow a strategy that makes sense to you, it may actually be desirable that other vegans speak up on Palestine/Gaza and other issues in terms of increasing the strength and reach of the vegan movement.
As Tim said, unless it has wings or 4 legs I'm not interested in anything else.... and better teach them how to use a condom and there'll be less fight & dispute
Gary Yourofsky needs to read your checklist... Great work, David, I'm going to use this checklist myself!
Gary Yourosky haters and praisers need to read this too.
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.
I really appreciate your insights! I feel the love and experience from this post. May all beings be happy and free from suffering
I tell people that when you share non-animal political thoughts in animal rights spaces (where your social media could be an animal rights space if you are an activist), you run the gambit of alienating someone and inadvertently excluding them from coming out and making a difference for animals. Is that worth it? Most say "no". You are saying "no". I say "no". I wish more people would put this into practice!
Edit: Meant to say, love this post! I like that you are getting more practical and not working in the world of idealism, but what makes material differences for animals is what should be prioritized.
Your reasoning makes sense, and I think it's totally fine for you to do what you feel is right for you, but I also think that there are other equally valid perspectives.
I don't agree with your definition of virtue signalling as: ‘virtue signalling,’ I mean speech that prioritises public moral display over meaningful strategy or real-world impact.
I think the term 'virtue signalling' should be reserved for disingenuous moral display in which the person doing the virtue signalling is clearly doing so as a self-publicity exercise rather than out of sincere concern. Anyone expressing sincerely-felt concern is doing a lot more than virtue signalling - they are expressing a sincerely held conviction.
It is rarely possible to accurately measure real-world impact in activism. Cases where it is possible to do so (e.g. someone going vegan as a result of watching a video) are the exception rather than the rule.
Whilst some vegans many only care about animals, many vegans are, first and foremost, compassionate people who care about all life and want to ameliorate all suffering. Their compassion doesn't have walls. By speaking up against, for example, the unspeakable crimes being committed against children in Gaza, they are demonstrating that they are compassionate people and that veganism is a movement driven by compassion which, in turn, may encourage the many hundreds of millions of people who care about children in Gaza to become vegan.
I actually became vegan (almost 10 years ago now) partly because of Gaza. When I saw the misery being inflicted upon the people of Gaza (even long before the current genocide) it reminded me of the suffering that is inflicted upon animals in factory farming, and I realised that I couldn't support either. If I had heard vegans speaking up on this issue it may have encouraged me to go vegan even sooner.
So I do think that whilst I totally respect your right to follow a strategy that makes sense to you, it may actually be desirable that other vegans speak up on Palestine/Gaza and other issues in terms of increasing the strength and reach of the vegan movement.
As Tim said, unless it has wings or 4 legs I'm not interested in anything else.... and better teach them how to use a condom and there'll be less fight & dispute
Great list.