they get less so, which is precisely why the advocates have to turn it around I think.
Conversation
Replying to
people will have decency to feel guilt/shame when an actual victim rages verbally at them.
2
Replying to
But shock tactics like graphic images of torture in factory farms just drive people more firmly into denial and "it's just food."
2
Replying to
I’m not saying that more anger is the right tactic at all, but the question is whether dRights/dAdvocateAnger is + or -
1
Replying to
positive briefly then negative. It's an excuse to ignore them.
1
Replying to
angry advocate = people judging "it's not really about animals, she's projecting, it's about her own issues."
1
Replying to
The problem with intermediary anger is that it opens up ambiguity of intermediary motives.
1
Replying to
this seems true of 99%of advocacy, e.g. think tanks, etc. so I must be missing something in your model…
1
Replying to
You're missing the fact that animals are neither inanimate/non-sentient, nor human. It's a fundamental distinction.
1
Replying to
sure, but I don’t see why that so deeply affects tactics…c.f. Policy advocacy for absent stakeholders, etc.
1

