26
‘The big story of the 21st century’: is this the most shocking documentary of the year?
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
26 points (86.1% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1003 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Foregoing meat completely is one way to eat less meat.
Anyway, your argument is a perfect example of "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." It will be much easier to convince people to become vegetarian or vegan in the future if they first get used to not eating meat with every meal/every day.
I don't mean to equate anything here, but do you think that would have been an effective strategy for social change in other movements?
Like: "What if we just did a little slavery? It'll be much easier to convince slave owners to give up slavery if they got used to having just a few slaves."
Do you think that would have been an effective strategy instead of calling for complete abolition?
Once again, I'm not trying to draw a comparison here, you could substitute any past social movement, but the logical structure should hold regardless.
The logical structure doesn't hold. People don't eat meat for profit, they eat it for preference. You can't ask slave owners to be slightly less profit-seeking. You can ask people to tolerate small sacrifices like eating less meat.
Whatever the case, individual solutions to structural problems are not and have never worked, it's a capitalist lie. I intentionally said "ask people to tolerate small sacrifices" instead of "make small sacrifices". A reduction in meat consumption has to be imposed, whether at the distributor or the supplier.
You are very directly drawing a comparison there, regardless of your claim otherwise.
This is a spurious argument which is clearly meant to provoke, so I'm not going to engage any further. The two are not the same, and if you can't see that, I'm obviously not going to be the one to convince you since you.
If you can't understand the difference between structure and content, there's no point in discussing further.
That's exactly how most social movements, including slavery, evolved, but OK.
Have you ... not heard of the civil war?
Which one? Do you mean the one from the country that went from enslaving black people to enslaving prisoners who so conveniently happen to be black?
Really? That's how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let's try it with some social movement that's often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:
"You shouldn't call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that's unrealistic. Just stick to 'Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.' Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don't properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: "It's bad and you shouldn't do it, but it's still OK to do a little."
I'm not advocating for half measures myself, but stating that half measures don't work is simply historically false. You call for radical measures, bomb a bunch of official buildings, get some rights, and then go back to step one. But it never happens overnight, no matter how much we want it to
I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I'm saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.