General Category => Discussions about specific materials => Topic started by: takin on October 16, 2009, 11:53:24 AM

Title: Trends
Post by: takin on October 16, 2009, 11:53:24 AM
I am a little ambivalent about this one. It is by no doubt impressive and interesting by itself but I am not sure about its relevancy in this website. I am not quite sure who is it meant for? I understand your general message but don’t understand the relevancy to grassroots activists like me and my friends except that all the examples you gave have something to do with animal exploitation.
It starts with criticism on events that I personally am against and so does anyone I know. It is clear that the live earth show won’t save the planet but closing factory farms and putting a massive pressure on big and contaminating corporations and on governments who let that happen even though it directly hurts the ones elected them. I don’t think Al gore can be taken seriously so I personally don’t feel the need to refer to him and I don’t understand the serious reference he got in your article.  
And about the fur campaign and the dependency on celebrities, the sexism and etc, I think your address is PETA not the whole movement, and they already have and still are very much criticized inside the movement and out, for example by Gary Francione (
Failure is just a matter of time when it comes to celebrity based provocative campaigns. Placing models in the front instead of animal rights activist was a mistake that shot back like a boomerang once a fat enough contract was offered. It’s PETA’s failure on the fur campaign and in general their tactics are not very representative. I doubt there’re any serious activists siding with the policy of spending half of the annual budget on a 30 seconds ad of models masturbating with vegetables for example.

About Supersize me, the movie is about the question of self responsibility and whether corporate rule doesn’t daze it to the point of blocking any possibility to take personal responsibility for one’s actions. The question the movie is trying to answer is whether corporations’ invasive ads and marketing methods neutralize the ability of people to think for themselves and take the responsibility for their actions and if the answer is yes then there is a case in the prosecution of the two teenagers accusing McDonalds for their obesity which I remind you was Morgan’s inspiration to make the film in the first place. It is not about meat it is a bout a corporation that sells meat. It could have been haagen dazs or pizza hut or Hershey’s or any other corporation that sells fat foot that eating much of it can cause obesity. The aim wasn’t to create a vegetarian trend and so can’t be an argument against the use of trends. Not that I am for the use of trends I just don’t see the movie as a relevant example.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Euthanasia brigade on October 17, 2009, 06:13:22 AM
The Madonna bit was awesome, laughed my head off
Givitup!!! if you want to save the planet let me see you jumping up and down!!!
Jumping down a building top more like it.
Seriously great job, keep them coming
Without reopening the issue (was brought up recently I don’t remember where), even the most hardliners I know use the global warming scares and health craze (two very loud hypes) in vegan advocating, so my personal experience and that of others here don’t add up with your statement
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Earth to Venus on October 17, 2009, 11:48:28 AM
This comment is a little strange. Don’t you think the fact that McDonalds and the fur industry got strengthen despite the harsh attacks means something?
I don’t think the fact that the attacks are completely different, by their nature and by the characters, is relevant. It is the fact that both of the attacked figures came out stronger which is an indication of a trendy world which is the point of the article.
I think you focus on the drivers and the regulators too much while the orientation of the article is on the easily driven public.
It is clear that supersize me is not a film by the movement and that Peta’s campaign, whether you like it or not, is. Still the result is what is compared not the intentions, the result and the figures behind the intention. The public’s memory is very short. Very soon people forget and get back to their old convenient and harmful habits.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Eternal salvation on October 18, 2009, 06:01:03 AM
Without reopening the issue (was brought up recently I don’t remember where)

I guess you meant the discussion about the most selfish argument? 
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Earth to Venus on October 18, 2009, 08:28:09 AM
yes I think so
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: takin on October 18, 2009, 11:57:51 AM
Thanks I’ll read it soon
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Declaration of the end on October 19, 2009, 06:26:37 AM
I just recently heard that there is a new star in the anti spurlock trend called tom naughton. This asshole made a film called Fat Head. Here is a link to the fathead website.  
So apparently the after effect of supersize me isn’t over yet.
About the green trend, have you read the article the anthropocentric view of the environmentalists? I think it can complete the picture of the eco-narcissism issue.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Declaration of the end on October 19, 2009, 06:28:15 AM

sorry the link didnt work for some reason here is the address:
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: takin on October 20, 2009, 11:32:48 PM
About the article you mentioned, I did see it and liked it very much, but I fail to see the connection. Anthropocentric environmentalists clearly and convincingly show how non vegan environmentalists are hypocrite and inconsistent with their views and actions, how absurd is the notion of meat eating environmentalist defending endangered species, so I understand this article relevancy to oos approach, that you cant even build on your supposedly allies. But it is about environmental activists not environmental trend, and because of that it was easier for me to relate to. I don’t think we should act according to what is hip so I am not excited with the green trend and I will not infer dispirit conclusions when it will be over.
The fact that activists’ arguments and actions are so lame is depressing me much more than the current mainstream drift. That’s why I liked Anthropocentric environmentalists and why I am ambivalent with trends.

I haven’t heard about this guy tom naughton until now and according to his website I just surfed in, it’s an asshole responding to an asshole. My point was that spurlock is not one of us. The movie is not about our issues and you can always find assholes like these two, it doesn’t prove anything.
Morgan Spurlock was a meat eater before the making of the movie and he stayed a meat eater after it. Even though it is not a movie about vegetarianism the expectation that the creator will at least consider vegetarianism after all he learned, saw and heard. And even that didn’t happen, so how much of an example did the filmmaker himself gives the viewers if nothing he learned during that time convinced him to quit the corpse devouring. Nothing he saw, heard or read changed him, not even us vegans dream… living with a vegan chef as a life partner.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: SATS on October 21, 2009, 07:32:29 PM
It is a little off topic but since you brought it up, I think that it is clear that environmentalists are not allies of animal rights activists, but this article is doing a great job of the necessary separation between the two. Most of the animal rights activists I know see themselves as social and political activists who are part of a moral calling to liberate the most suppressed group in history and not part of the green movement but ones that are also green, not a segment of the environmental movement but one that is also very environmental friendly, probably the most even though it is just a side effect of the main concept. Of course, here, both are not relevant but as said by the O.O.S someplace else in this forum, it is important to have a strong animal rights movement so separating itself from the anthropocentric environmentalist movement and also from false public image and interior activism false perception of animal lovers is very important.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: E.A.S on October 23, 2009, 05:05:37 PM
Before I comment on Takin’s message I want to check tom naughton’s film and website first since it is new to me as well. Meanwhile here is something I want to write about environmentalists who eat bologna sausage sandwich in the recess between activities to protect endangered animals, originally made for "The Anthropocentric View of the Environmentalists" but didn’t find its place there.   
The pseudo morally green concept of species conservation is actually "Amountism". The categorical command is the amount of individuals of each species. Someone’s rights, the compassion he gets, the entrance to the moral circle, all depend on how rare he is. It can also be called "Rarism" – discrimination based on prevalence.
Same as stamps, paintings and other virtu, the rarer the species the more valuable it is to the pseudo environmentalists. Valuable, but not well treated, on the contrary, if someone is unfortunate enough to belong to a very rare species he will be kidnapped from his natural habitat and in the name of species conservation will go through series of tests and examinations. He gets protection in the price of his freedom, in many cases permanent tracking collar and invasive exams every once in while. I saw on "wild chronicles" a crew of conservationists that invaded an alligators’ cave and forcefully pulled all of them out, then transferred them to a facility to try and mate them. They tied their jaws with a rope and pulled each of them out like a car stuck in the mud. Another team hassled a shark until they managed to penetrate a long stick with a camera into his stomach in order to inspect what he eats.
On the other hand there are species with immense amounts and so their value is accordant. The same "environmentalists" can invest decades to save the last "details" of an endangered species while devouring the bodies of whom that there are many of. This is an inverse racial doctrine, protecting the weak with devoutness and devouring the "strong" with indifference (of course in the sense of false evolution notion of survival of the strongest and of course it is humans who artificially breed the related abundant species according to supply and demand notion and regardless of their ability to survive).
Anti extinctionism is anthropocentrism. Humans don’t care about the dying animals but about their dying opportunity to watch them. The amountists don’t have a problem with destroying only with annihilating. Rights are imparted only to species not to creatures and on the basis of general census. If the group is small enough it will gain certain rights. In fact it will gain only one right - the right not to be extinct. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want as long as you don’t extinct the species.
So should members of a species kill each other until they are rare enough to gain the privilege of being registered in the endangered list?

The "green" trend is so fake and superficial, so human oriented, so undemanding and comfortable, like recycle we’ve talked about in Vegan Suffer  ( as the old - you can do what ever you want just don’t buy CFC products and maybe the most madden example is protecting endangered species, the Amountism concept.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Declaration of the end on October 24, 2009, 03:51:26 AM
The green trend is very relevant to the animal rights struggle practically as they mentioned in the article and also principally as it doesn’t challenge, not even a bit, humans absolute domination over the planet and over the animals.
There is a demand to decrease humans’ foot print but the borders are very obvious and the tone is very anthropocentric. If everybody will reduce a little, ultimately there will be a huge reduction. But there is no moral question regarding humans’ place in this world. Where did humans got the moral authority to do as they wish in this planet?
It is exaggerated, redundant and excessive so it should be reduced but of course every human has the basic right to enjoy what the world "offers" him, just that now the bill should be a little smaller. And with that the whole new green approach sums up.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: E.A.S on October 24, 2009, 03:03:03 PM
O.K I will try to deal with your message each example separately.
About the “green” trend.
We are not asking you to take Al Gore seriously but you must take seriously how serious he is taken. In fact he is probably the person who did the most for environmental awareness ever, and it proves our point about the world. If someone like him with his embarrassing advises in the end of "an inconvenient truth”, with his gigantic energy eating mansion, with the promotion of companies he himself is financially invested in, with the family’s cattle ranch (very environmentally harmful) and of course the total ignoring of animal based diet as the most environmentally harmful thing every non vegan takes part in and despite it is a personal decision that everyone can easily take. All that and a lot more from the man who is the unshakable environmental guru. Not by you of course you know better, but you can’t argue with the trend. And what I am asking you to do is to face it. I am sure each and every serious activist is sure that the Live Earth can only grant gore with saint savior image and the participated celebrities on the "right" side of the political correctness. But doesn’t it tell you something about the world? Sometimes I feel that all the work we invested in the manifest and in the FAQ was a waste of time, all we need to do is show Madonna on the live 8 and you’ll understand.

These events are a strong reality alarm. A man in charge of the NAFTA and GATT agreements which severely gutted environmental standards across the globe, won a Nobel price! A non vegan by definition can’t be an environmentalist (please read our article the anthropocentric view of the environmentalists ( if you haven’t yet) so getting a Nobel price for it? This is the world we live in. Mister switching the light bulb is the world environmental hero and that is why he got a serious reference in our article. It doesn’t matter that his "global warming show” is a last-ditch for his political carrier more than it’s a last ditch to save the planet from the global warming catastrophe. In the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, he re-set the course of his life to focus on climate change in what seems to be another round of claim to fame", If to quote from our article, because it is not about gore but about the green trend in a trendy world. The capitalist environmentalism is a much bigger problem than the clown in the head of the trend: "The movie and the campaign created an oxymoronic green consumerism trend, which is harmful now and will be even more harmful in the future, because not only that this "green" trend distracts the attention from the biggest problem which is overconsumption and the consumption of environmentally devastative products like animal products, it legitimizes it”.

The resistance of serious animal rights activists and serious activists in general to these pathetic Live Celebrities’ Reputation Improvement shows is clear to me, the fact that they understand that it is all public relations is clear to me, that fact that serious organizations not only will not take part in these events but resist them is also clear to me, what is not clear is when will you understand that this is the world. "Private jets for climate change" is the world. It is al gore’s and Madonna’s world not Gary Francione’s and Ingrid newkirk’s world and it’s a terrible terrible one.

I agree with what Earth to Venus wrote and want to add that even now that it’s the environmentalism finest hour, there is no chance for fundamental questions to be asked. On the contrary this trend is anthropocentricism celebration. Everything is in the same train of thought that it is humans’ world and they deserve everything, the only problem is that they have exaggerated a little so now they need to change their consumption bag to a cotton bag instead of nylon. Even now that this trend is in its prime, this is the highest that it gets. Corporations use it to blur other horrible things they do, same for governments and personal consumers cleaning their conscience with environmental friendly detergents.
It is also the welfarists finest hour as al gore proved that the only way to do things is to ask many to do little and not asking everybody to do a lot ending up with almost nothing.
And that is the connection to grassroots activism as well, ideologically strong tiny group with little effect on the mainstream.

About the supersize me issue,
The fact the only perspective of the movie was the human one and it still didn’t help but rather strengthened McDonalds only proves that the moral argument is chanceless.
Not the lies in advertising, chemicals and growth hormones, obesity and health problems and etc. none have helped. The McDonalds response was devastating and it even created an army of supporters, as we specified in the article. Some people got so furious about the movie they made their own experiment in purpose of proving the opposite. None has made even as near noise as supersize me did, but it’s still astonishing I think that quite a few people did quite a few efforts to help "the poor corporation" and it’s still a relevant example showing how trends are two-edged sword.
Trends are strong and influential but they are also provisional and backlashed. It’s not the independent (or McDonalds funded…) movies that prevented the chance of supersize me to change humans’ eating habits, or vegetarianize in massive scale or at least draw many people away from McDonalds forever, it was as mentioned in the article the McDonald’s response.

For us the golden arches represent aggressive and exploitative corporate rule that invades and destroys everyplace, physical territories as rain forests, children’s playgrounds, sweatshops and of course animal abuse and exploitation in factory farms, and virtual territories as billboards, street signs (McDonalds 200m straight!) and TV. Still all this miniaturized standing against what it represents to most of the world, freedom of choice (and it doesn’t matter that it’s choosing between crap and bigger crap), something familiar and loved everywhere no matter where they are. Studies show that tourists prefer to eat at McDonalds rather than local food restaurants because it reminds them of home, how insane and ironic is that. McDonald’s success to make exactly the same taste in each branch in each place in the world may sound insipid, unvaried and culturally poor almost culturally supervise to us, but it is seized by many as something wonderful that makes the world small and familiar.

As depressing as the westernization aspiration, which McDonalds is one of its symbols, is, many Americans seriously believe that their government marketing democracy and this is its guiding principle in its foreign policy. They seriously see it as a light to all the nations, so it is no wonder that even with its history they still see it as freedom’s personal ambassador and that they created the so rudely pretentious "project for the American century".

And for Morgan personally, he knows that facts perfectly well, especially the health related, he is married to a vegan chef! and he made a movie against the biggest meat producer in the whole world, but still he won’t become vegan because “ham is the greatest thing ever” as he said in the movie that proves how meat is bad for humans’ health that he himself made! It’s so unbelievable that people like that exist, that you don’t even count him. But he is neither from another planet nor from a whole different culture, therefore he is a valid example for the argument that some people will never be vegan. Asshole or not he is here and he is representative for many other people. Unfortunately it is an assholes world.  

About the Atkins diet trend,
Since you haven’t mentioned anything about it can I conclude that you agree with us on that one?
Anyway Tom Naughton which Declaration of the end mentioned as "a new star in the anti spurlock trend" is in fact a proof of two issues in the article. He is of course Anti- supersize me so can be added as another one of Ronald’s new friends and as being an enthusiastic low-crab advocator he is one of atkins’ successors. Since people are too lazy to read a book and prefer to watch an hour and half movie, a comedian like tom is more influential than for example Gary Taubes who wrote Good Calories Bad Calories and another important successor and unfortunately one of many who still prod diets which resemble the Atkins diet. Popular books like Protein power and Carbs Wars, Livin la vida low carb and etc. continue the low carb high suffering diet so unfortunately the trend is on. It is not only a recent history example of the fickle character trends got but it is still awfully popular.

About the Fur campaign,
Claiming that fur coming back to fashion is all resultant from cindy crawford’s repugnant changeover is totally groundless. It is giving her way to much power and influence. The spirit of the age had and still has much more significant role in Fur becoming politically incorrect back in the 90’s and in coming back to fashion in the last few years.
As written in the article:
“…the success of the fur campaign in the 90’s was part of a wider change in public attitude. As opposed to the 80’s, when it was perfectly acceptable to flaunt one's wealth through one's outfit (and fur is the most ostentatious way to do it), in the 90’s, the trend was anti-ostentation and minimalism (grunge for example), a very good ground for an anti fur campaign. The last decade on the other hand, is dominated by the bling-bling look, with rappers singing about their love of champagne, grandiose cars and diamonds.”

The Crawford example was brought to point the problematic use of a model as a moral exemplary figure, and don’t get me wrong it is wrong when it is done with doctors in the anti vivisection advocacy just as much. It is not because she is a model, both cases are wrong regardless of doctors’ education and honorable reputation. Ingrind newkirk’s is much more important than any doctor or model since the animal struggle is her vocation. She knows what she is talking about when she is speaking about animals’ exploitation and about ethics.
Of course if a model or a doctor are familiar with the subject in a sufficient way to take a stand than it is o.k, however, the point is that the profession is irrelevant as long as it doesn’t give any relevant knowledge, and in this case both don’t.

Cindy Crawford was the face of PETA’s anti fur campaign so she is the perfect example for the unreliability of trends but it is not about her and it is definitely not PETA’s fault that fur comeback.
It is PETA’s fault though that they build on campaigns such as this hoping they will change the world.
We wrote a lot about how ingratiated, human oriented and speciesist activism is bad for the long run and that it strengthen anthropocentrism and speciesism. Most of the conventional organizations initiate and participate in these kinds of activities and PETA is no different in that sense. Even in the notorious sexist activities PETA is not unique, they most definitely take it to the extreme as we saw in this year super bowl, but if you’ll randomly visit in many other organizations’ websites you‘ll find how many partners they have to these kinds of tactics. But that’s not the point. Except direct actions in the spirit of the Animal Liberation Front, most of the activists initiate and participate in speciesist activism in the spirit of "for your health, for the planet, for the hungry, for the animals" and please read the most selfish argument ( in our article section for that matter.

Meatouts are very popular by many organizations and they are a very relevant example of anthropocentric and speciesist activism. Even when there is no big sign with the "for your health, for the planet, for the hungry, for the animals" it still is an acceptation of the human tyranny, it still is the axiomatic approach that it is humans’ decision what to eat and the activists are there trying their best to convince them to choose the vegan food instead of their regular. It is principally putting the animals’ fate in the hands of humans hoping they won’t choose to hurt them, knowing that if the almighty humans won’t like the taste of the vegan food, the suffering continues.
It is associated with your criticism on PETA because in so many cases their tactics are exaggerations of many other organizations activism, not something totally different. And for the general matter of this trendy world which is the article and this discussion topic after all, even if the leading nutritious line will change and the prevailing opinion will be that veganism is the best diet for everybody regardless of blood type, ethnical origin and age, it will still be vegansim in human orientation. I know that the animals don’t care about the reasons as long as they don’t suffer in factory farms anymore and so should I, and I am. But besides the fact that animals in other farms and under other types of exploitation systems still suffer, the problem is that the anthropocentric reasons can easily change by the spirit of the age. It is a feeble basis that can easily reverse and besides it is only relevant if you seriously believe such a desirable but unfortunately imaginary trend is possible.
And if you do, you should read the Denmark case in the manifest  

If Denmark is a macro example, Morgan spurlock is the micro. His answer why he is not vegan is the lousiest but also very honest what makes it one of the best arguments to destroy the world.
You can find a very interesting discussion regarding the real reasons humans eat animal based foods (especially meat) under the name of the slideshow: Culinary Investigation (, I recommend you all to read the discussion after watching the slideshow. And in this context and for conclusion, people are doing what is good for them on immediate and personal level anyway, so strengthening the already strong self concentration perception by blandishment and fake worry to ones health is totally terminating the almost nonexistent chances to put animals suffering in focus.

You can tell yourselves that you are "introducing vegan food items which are not familiar to many meat eaters, otherwise they wouldn’t know that there are plenty of healthy and tasty vegan dishes". But what do you think that the animals would think if they saw you begging for passer-by meat eaters to taste tofu cutlet while only in the time they hold the cutlet, suspiciously examine it, hesitate if to taste it or not, millions of animals are slaughtered? Every second 1,600 chickens are violently snatched from the box that led them from the shed they lived in for 6 weeks of hell, hanged upside down on iron shackles, electrified while fully conscious and than slaughtered. 1,600 a second. While you are looking at the meat eater chewing the tofu cutlet preying that he will like it and maybe even consider buying it instead of meat once or twice…hundreds of thousands of animals are cramped, kicked, burned, stabbed, scared, debeaked, starved, thirsted, electrified or severely beaten. That is our real problem with PETA and with the rest of the movement just as much.

If you would happen to witness a rape occurring in front of your eyes, would you offer the rapist to masturbate instead? Would you offer him your available friend who is looking for relationship?
Would you explain to him that it is wrong and he should look for other ways to satisfy his desires? Would you ask him to suppress his desires and suggest to introduce him to a few matching websites?
Maybe you offer him money to go to brothel where he can rape in acquiescently?
Or perhaps you make do with giving him a few bucks to rent a porn movie?
And what if none will convince him? Wouldn’t you smack his head unconscious if you could?!
Offering meat eaters vegan food is like offering the rapist all of the above. And if they are not convinced, you are letting them continue after the conversation and the taste tests end.
Of course there is a difference because if you will stop a rapist in the action you will be rewarded and if you stop a meat eater in the action you will be arrested. That is one of the reasons why we don’t suggest killing meat eaters sporadically but all of them and as much as possible, simultaneously. There are many other reasons and all of them are specified in the Manifest and in the FAQ, Please read them thoroughly.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: takin on October 26, 2009, 04:34:29 PM
I read the most selfish argument discussion and it made me watch the article of course. I find it very strong and truthful and sad in the end.
I think the fact that McDonalds and the fur industry got strengthen means a lot but as I said I didn’t think that us activists and especially not the type that the o.o.s are looking for, need this kind of message, but after reading this discussion and the admin’s long and thorough respond and especially watching the article again, I guess you are right Earth to Venus I did focused to much on what the article says about the activists and not on the public the activists want to change. It was much clearer in the second time.
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: Earth to Venus on October 27, 2009, 10:19:35 AM
Trends in general, the green trend specifically and animal rights meet in another place.
"Scientists at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) have found that replacing Australia's seven million cattle and 36 million sheep by 2020 and replacing them with 175 million kangaroos would produce a similar amount of meat for consumption, yet would lower greenhouse gases by three percent each year.
Methane expelled from cattle and sheep accounted for a staggering 11 percent of the country's total greenhouse gases. Kangaroos, by contrast, give off very little methane."

This adds up with the already promotion of low carbon meat like chickens, rabbits and ostriches (which are also promoted as healthier meat - low fat like chicken but taste like beef).
In order to decrease the nation’s greenhouse gases countries may tax high carbon industries and subsidize lower alternatives. In this case the standing will be "More chicken less beef".
I am not sure if in this case I want people to care enough to do something about their part in global warming?
Title: Re: Trends
Post by: E.A.S on October 27, 2009, 05:53:29 PM
It is another proof that the animals never win. It also proves that counting on present drifts not putting animals suffer as the main and only issue but just as a wishful side affect, won’t bring any good. Animal rights activists don’t want to understand that people want to eat meat. No matter what they do people won’t stop. Very quickly, animal rights activists adopted the global warming trend, thinking that now when people know how environmentally harmful meat is, they’ll quit. Sometimes I wonder if we live in the same world?! Of course they won’t. They don’t care.
Just as after the avian flu outbreak in India people didn’t stop eating meat but replaced the chickens with rabbits, same will happen if cows’ meat is taxed or considered politically incorrect for environmental reasons. And what happened in India is different since the ones who ate chickens were directly harmed by it, not the next generations. In this case when the harms are caused to someone else and "only" in the future I doubt they would care.

We were furious about al gore ignoring the subject, now scientists are advising to substitute cows with chickens and kangaroos since they are greener, which means more victims.
Will you ever learn? The only chance for a fundamental change in animals’ state is convincing humanity that animals deserve to be in the moral circle and this argument is the one with the smallest chance to ever be accepted by humans.
I am not sure if in this case I want people to care enough to do something about their part in global warming?
This is how twisted the world we live in is …
TinyPortal © 2005-2015