Aggressive Veganism?

How much is too much? The aggressive approach taken by many vegans and animal rights (AR) activists is a subject of debate for a while now within the movement. When I say aggressive I mean the level of intensity that some employ for their methods of spreading the vegan or AR message, from sharing graphic images, swearing profusely or actively criticising others. This doesn’t only mean being harsh it could also include focusing your efforts into a more relentless and forceful style of interacting with others. With this in mind I’d like to find out how many people take each side of the argument through a simple poll (below) to find out more about how our movement works. First I guess I should outline some of the basic ins and outs of each approach (which will of course not be exhaustive, just very basic ideas):

Aggressive Approach:

Pros:

  • It’s very easy to channel your passion and frustration into a more forceful way of dealing with others and most other vegans will identify with the things you are saying.
  • Properly calling someone out for their ignorance or stupidity in an argument can seriously limit their credibility to an audience.
  • A constant looming presence could influence people to make a change (this could be for guilt reasons etc.)
  • Animal lives are on the line so anything short of aggressiveness is not doing the issue justice.

Cons:

  • Many people may consider it off-putting, even other vegans and activists, which could damage the vegan image.
  • You can risk alienating people or shutting off a potential audience (such as the issue of swearing around children).

Laid-back Approach:

Pros:

  • Fostering a community that is understanding and encouraging is helpful for existing vegans and prospective vegan alike.
  • An easy going attitude is approachable and won’t put off/scare away potentially interested people.
  • Lots of positive content could encourage people to try veganism or influence them to make a change.
  • Trying to engage in discussions instead of arguments can encourage people to be open minded instead of assuming a defensive position.

Cons:

  • It can be hard to remain calm and level headed when witnessing the horrors and injustices inflicted upon other animals, and when met with ignorance or mockery it can be disheartening.
  • Some may say you aren’t doing enough or aren’t passionate enough about the cause.

So now you’ve seen a few basic pros and cons from each approach, and you’ve most likely encountered both sides at some point so have a sense of how they work. Now I’d like you to choose which you think is the best approach and vote in the poll below (anonymously) so we can see which is the most prominent side. Please try and get as many people as you can to take part in this poll so the results will be more accurate (share it on Facebook or Twitter or whatever).

*I haven’t added a middle ground “bit of both” option because it would skew the results, it may be a difficult decision but for the purpose of this study only the two options are available.*

What is the Best Approach, Aggressive or Laid-back?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Thanks for voting, don’t forget to share this poll, we need as many people as possible to vote to make the results accurate! You can also follow me on Twitter or like my page on Facebook for more content.

Leave a Reply