Massive respect to Joey and Dan for risking their lives for Pignorant. For those saying that Joey was just showing off cos it showed more of the operation than it did of the gas chamber footage - who is going to watch 1 hour 40 minutes of pigs in gas chambers? This way it was more like a movie plot so keeps you watching. The horrifying footage they, and the Australian activists, got of the pigs in the gas chambers will go some way, at least, to silence those who claim killing by gas is painless. We need to keep shining a light on this business. Evil hates the light.
It was also about the systems surrounding all of this, the fake welfare certificates and how everything is hidden and the effort required to expose it and so on, and not just exposing the gas chambers.
Documentaries do a great job of converting people to veganism. Most of the vegan activists I know went vegan because of documentaries. You seem to be a strong proponent of systematic change through protests, but who's doing those? Vegans. Great work, Joey.
Veganism and animal rights activism is the fringe of the fringe, when it comes to social justice movements. So yeah, documentaries play a good sized part in the make up of the movement - in making people plant-based and to a lesser extent, into animal activists, but there aren't exactly a lot of us in the movement. So to say "our movement is what it is because of documentaries got people involved" isn't a resounding endorsement based on the size and growth of our movement. I'm pro-vegan outreach - it's important. But by itself, it isn't going to achieve anything. We need to be focusing on systemic change through a wide variety of tactics (including protests and education - again, those are tactics, not strategies), and through our campaigning, we can and will also make vegans. If we are just focusing on making vegans, who statistically don't stick around that long, we are taking a very roundabout way to hopefully get to the bits that matter. But if we go straight to the point where we can make tangible change, AND make vegans in that space, we are doing two things at once. To me that sounds much more strategic.
@@seankennedy2856 - totally. But when I think we can combine all those approaches into a strategic laser focus - that's when communities can start to make important tangible change, and in a timely fashion. ✊
@@thecrankyvegan i wanna preface this by saying i don't have a great answer, i just have the question. but ok- i fully agree with you that pressure campaigns and supply side activism are effective ways to bring about change. but the change they bring about is very slow. maybe a designer will drop fur after 3 months of protesting or an animal testing lab will go under after 2 years of secondary and tertiary targeting. and those things DO contribute to animal liberation, but only a small amount. to speed up the rate of change, through both supply side work (pressure campaigns) and demand side work (outreach, cultivated meats, etc) we need to grow our movement. how should we do that if not outreach? how do we get enough people to take on this enormous industy and win?
@@thecrankyveganSocial justice movements are going nowhere without the essential ingredient of veganism. In fact they are counter revolutionaries to the only revolution in town. Selfishness, greed, and fear of fundamental change is what is holding these "revolutionaries" back. They are dragging the revolution down. Now, .You say that people are not going vegan in large numbers and that is true but it is understandable. If you observe people coming and going out of flesh food outlets for some time you will be horrified at the scale of the obese epidemic that has engulfed the human animal population. That is why the numbers of other animals being consumed is continuing to rise.. We need to get people to understand that they are losing their spirituality and that they are turning into demonic monsters. It is true! That is how serious things are! Well, I have booked my ticket to go and see Christspiracy. If we do not get this spiritual thing right then we are all done for. Thank you for the video.💚❤🩵
Pignorant is by far the best documentary out there to appeal to the non-vegans of today. It's not made for vegans. I really think your criticisms are unjust and out of touch.
I don't think vegans are the intended audience. But that's who it is. And I think that's the case for almost all of Joey's (and other vegan influencers) content. It's mostly vegans watching it. And I think that's probably the reason why it's not showing up on Amazon's search pages much - Joey fans and vegans went and watched it the first couple of days, and then it dried up, and the algorithm responded. But I'm open to me being "out of touch", feel free to explain how!
@@thecrankyveganI think the problem was that Prime video sucks and no one watches stuff on that platform. A Netflix slot would have yielded different fruits.
The film is not directed at vegans it is to bring awareness to the public about the dreadful way pigs are treated. I think as a vegan you should support anything that educates people on this issue.
@@lauratanln yes am vegan so dont need to see it.. as am already converted, i am sensitive to it because i see them as animals not as foodlike some people sadly see them as
I can't count how many times I've heard a vegan say, they went vegan because of a documentary or because of Gary's video. Dominion and Gary are the 2 I hear most often.
I've been recently doing outreach because it seems to me that having more vegans is the obvious solution, and because it's something easy that I can do, like you said. But I don't want to feel like I'm wasting my time doing this. If having (arguably) more vegans isn't helping the animals, then what will? What would be some examples of effective strategies that caused social change in past movements? I'm curious!
You should heartily validate yourself. Having more vegans is certainly part of the solution. If there is only one vegan today and two tomorrow, that's progress. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. After thousands of years of animal abuse and animal consumption, that veganism and animal rights is in today's vocabulary is a big step forward. I rarely heard the words "veganism" and "animal rights" 50 years ago. Now I often hear them. Progress is painfully slow in this hideous world, but there is progress. You're not wasting your time. Just thought alone changes the world, for better or worse. Quantum physicists have proven that.
I appreciate you doing something that feels productive! So the general idea is that if we create enough vegans, we will start to see a drop in the demand, which will effect the supply. But a few things are happening. 1) After doing outreach for over 20 years in some countries, we don't really have an influx of vegans. We sometimes see a spike in plant based eaters, but statistically they don't stick around for long. Which means, at best, we are spinning our wheels in the sand. We don't have the numbers or resources to compete with population growth, recidivism and desire for animals. 2) If we *were* to see a shift in the demand due to the growth of vegans, subsidies would kick in. Currently in the US, we are talking tens of billions of dollars a year (last i checked) to pay farmers to continue despite falling numbers. And our outreach can't compete with that. 3) I mentioned this in my video, but despite what seems like a current influx of vegans, more animals are being killed. And that sometimes is in part because the meat and dairy is being exported. Take New Zealand for instance - they export 95% of all their milk. Unless you can change the industry and / or laws (both of which is done via pressure campaigns), it wouldn't really matter how many vegans were in NZ. So what has made just about 100% of social change? Pressure campaigns. Which is a focused effort to change or end a practice, business or industry. They are used to pass laws, oust politicians, change corporate or industry policies, close down places, get plant based foods into universities - you name it. If you can name a success, I would bet it involved a strategic campaign. They are done by utilizing a wide range of strategic tactics, instead of just one. So that means people might be protesting, writing, fundraising, petitioning, educating, all in concert with one another, all for the same goal. Which also means that as we do our pressure campaigns, we can be doing vegan outreach as part of them. That way we are being laser focused, but also doing the needed outreach as well. In the case of the film, the slaughterhouse didn't close because enough people stopped eating pigs, it's because Joey et al. did a pressure campaign and applied enough pressure to help get the place closed. But for whatever reason, Joey's film suggests we should be doing the education rather than the campaigning, despite the fact that it was the campaigning that got the job done. Thus my critique. Sorry that was so long.
@@markj7612 The problem is that if there's one vegan today and now there's 2 tomorrow, it's not really progress. Partly because statistically in a year, that second vegan won't be vegan anymore. But also because in that 24 hour time period, there's not 385,000 new babies, and I guarantee 99.99% of them are all going to be omnivores. So not are we not only keeping up, we are falling behind in huge ways, each and every day.
@@thecrankyvegan Obviously you have done your homework, and thank you for sharing your perspective with us, and thank you for replying to subscribers/ comments. I am aware that, worldwide, meat production is on the rise, particularly in China and other countries that are rising in standard of living. Affluence is equated with ability to eat more meat. However, my comment was directed to the individual who wonders whether or not his/her activities are furthering the cause for veganism. The fact is that an individual has enormous power, even if he does nothing more than meditate and envision a world without animal abuse. All thought, imagination and intention are creative. They shape the future. That has been proven by quantum physicists and cutting-edge research that is revealing the impact of thought and intention on the environment and everything in the environment. There are many books on this subject, and Lynne McTaggart's "The Power of Eight" is a good place to start. The world is changing, at an unprecedented rate. Slavery,, once the norm in the US, was abolished. Once any kind of animal abuse was tolerated, now there are laws against some forms of animal abuse (murdering animals for food is not considered abuse). Israel has been committing genocide on Palestinians for 75 years and only a handful of people said anything about it. Today millions of people are protesting the current genocide. Today, in view of peoples' unwillingness to change their palate desires and industrialization of mass murder, the cause for liberation of animals appear to be hopeless. The prospects for social change - the struggle against ignorance - has always seemed hopeless. Then individuals like Joey Carbstrong appeared and, against odds, began fanning the embers of change. You are knowledgeable about the best approach to furthering the cause. I am not. I am knowledgeable about the power of an individual. And I remind people that Mahatma Gandhi. who weighed 98 pounds and possessed nothing more than sandals, a pair of glasses and a loincloth, was responsible for driving the British empire out of India. Martin Luther King and other civil-rights activists faced formidable odds. Yes, in the context of demand for meat and meat production, we are going backwards. However, veganism and animal rights have appeared in the human vocabulary, and, as Victor Hugo said, "Nothing else in the world - not all of the armies - is so powerful as an idea whose time has come". Animal rights is an idea whose time has come. By the end of this century, most of humanity will either be vegan or humanity will be extinct - because animal agriculture is destroying the earth. We will see whether or not humanity, with its back against the wall, will choose to go extinct. Meanwhile, the individual vegan should remember that he/she is powerful and is offsetting the negative energy of thousands of carnivores. He/She is making a difference. That is not bliss-ninny, new-age thinking. It is a fact. Sages have been stating it as a fact for thousands of years. Today the new sciences are proving it.
Making people aware of oppression and educating them have always been an integral part of social change. In the early feminist movement A LOT of effort was put into making women realize that they were oppressed by the pioneer feminist activists (many believed all the appeals to tradition and nature). We need to challenge cultural speciesism in the same way, by educating the nonvegans.
Good review. Do you think repeating what they did in as many (or strategic) slaughter houses the next best activist approach? If you had the tools to organize and orchestrate something similar, then what would your ideas be?
I think generally speaking it worked because it was the right time and place - people hadn't seen such awful animal use before really. But if the playbook is used over and over, I think people will become unphased by it. So while I think we can replicate it to a certain extent, we need to continue to move our strategies and tactics forward to be more creative, more advanced and more flexible. And part of that is creating a movement that is on board with that. And I don't think we are there currently.
I disagree. Every vegan, by default, causes less animals to die per year. Every life saved matters. These documentaries do help. If there's another strategy, then work on that strategy too. Add. But do not take away. Making people vegan saves animal lives. Human lives also. To stop advocating and doing outreach will not help any life be saved.
First off, I'm not advocating not to do it. I'm advocating for us to learn the difference between a tactic and a strategy. Vegan outreach is a tactic. One tactic won't work by itself. That's why Joey educating people about pigs didn't close the slaughterhouse. But when you combine multiple tactics, education, protest, media etc. as part of a strategic campaign, that works. That's how Joey helped close that place down. Second, there's no one at the farms slowing down breeding or milking, or taking animals off of trucks because we made a new vegan. More animals are killed every year, even when huge scale interruptions happen to the system, like a pandemic. And that's because of subsidies. There are millions of pounds and gallons of meat cheese and dairy in the united states being stored and rotting because the government pays them to produce it, if the industry starts to slip. And that erases, and then some, any forward advance vegan outreach makes.
@nkyvegan I get that. But even with those odds stacked against vegans. We do still make a difference. Eating meat and drinking milk is not going to help the cause of animals. It makes no sense. We face down each enemy separately. People are one area. The government is another area. Each one is worth separate attention, tactics, and strategies. There is evidence that plant-based milks, for example have cut into the business of cow milk exploitation. It does work. It is making a change. One way to pressure government, is to make more people vegan. Because more people will care about how unjust subsidies are. More vegans are needed. Not less. The very fact that you even care - for example - about fighting against government subsidies. Is because you yourself are a vegan. If you weren't vegan, you wouldn't care. It is important to inspire people to care about animals. To become vegan. It matters. We all want the same thing. But to get to that point, we need more of us. Not less. The more, the better. There is strength in unity. People will care about corrupt lobbyists and government subsidies, when they actually come to care about an animal's life. As long as that doesn't happen, they just treat them as objects. Why not use every tool at our disposal. Every person matters in this fight.
@@thecrankyveganwould you suggest going into politics as an effective action? There's a party in Australia called the Animal Justice Party which is growing and achieving some great outcomes, like for lab animals.
@@WhiteHorseStudioArt of course being vegan is important. I'm not saying people shouldn't be or we shouldn't talk about it. What I'm saying is, relying on talking to people to get them to go vegan and change a lifestyle, to shift the demand side of supply and demand, is a losing strategy every time. I can't think of a time that has ever worked by itself. But I would push back that only vegans care about or work on animal issues. I would suggest actually that some really big victories and significant pieces in regards to animal use has come from people that aren't vegan. I wouldn't count them out so quickly.
@homie3461 yeah there's so many very crap politicians, and though I'm sure they put in a lot of work, I don't think it would be particularly hard. Though you'd want a thick skin. Yeah I mean the animal justice party here is basically the vegan party, and as the cranky vegan has said, we aren't exactly doing great at producing enough vegans. But I don't know if I'd want to compromise by joining a bigger party with some policies I disagree with.
I hate shorts and tend to ignore them, but will be better at watching them. As far as the documentary goes, I do not need to watch that stuff, though I applaud Joey for his efforts, but hope that thems that need to watch it find it, and that it prompts them to help us tackle the systems that permit animal use. It doesn't work. It's such a terrible waste of energy and I know that Joey has more recently been talking about strategies and tactics for attacking systems. Hopefully, he focuses more on that in future. Thanks for posting!
@@thecrankyvegan Like others have been saying, I think you need to refine your shorts to avoid the bottom 1/3 being obscured by all the junk YT overlays on them.
I don't think looking at animals killed is necessarily a helpful metric to guage success. Meat consumption in countries like the UK and Germany is down and so exports are up. The industries are shifting to other markets. I don't think that's a knock against the effectiveness of the movement. It's also weird to say the documentary is more geared towards vegan activists, but then also say you skipped through a good portion because it was footage you're already aware of. I think it struck a good balance between interesting to vegans and good info for non vegans. I still run into people every week that are unaware of CO2 gas chambers. I don't think the documentary is perfect but we need things like this to keep the stories in the news and to show people these practices are local to them and still happening everywhere.
I can't tell if you're serious or just being contrarian for clicks. Systemic change always trails a shift in societal opinion. The surest way to end an injustice is to have enough people oppose it that they cannot be ignored. We need to approach this problem from both sides until there is an intersection of the graph of individuals demanding change and the line of corporations feeling the pressure.
I would suggest going and looking at some of the bigger advancements other movements have made and see if they achieved those things by talking to people and educating them and then won because enough people were on their side. it almost never works that way. It's a small vocal minority that force the hand of their intended target that brings about the change. And then the public usually gets on board. Look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the US to end segregation. 66% of white folks in the south were opposed to it. But through pressure campaigns, the activists forced the government's hand to end it. And then decades later, a huge majority of the population look back at that time in disgust. I would suggest that what you are proposing is not only wrong, but the exact reverse of how change is made. So I would say I'm being serious, not being contrarian for clicks, and i'm basing that looking at how social change has been historically made over time.
@@TXRhody // obviously. But so far we are at about 1-2% in the united states and in most countries in the world that has an animal rights movement. The highest we have ever had in the history of our movement that i'm aware of, was around 8% but that dropped to 4% a year or two later. And this is after 20+ years of actual vegan campaigning and over 60 years of a modern animal rights movement. So 44%? Good luck. But we don't have time for that.
I understand your position, because you of course totally right, but are you suggesting that Joey, for example, should put his focus on something else? Because what he's doing is definitely working, even if just at a small scale. How do you see yourself being part of this radical change through the government? I would love to know. Thank you @@thecrankyvegan
I've just experienced it too. No idea what's going on with the YT algorithm but it's getting worse & is impinging on serious discussions about these issues.
I’m a 39 year Vegan and while I agree with you that Veganism isn’t lowering overall numbers of animals being eaten, because more and more animals are being slaughtered every year. BUT animal ag is under extreme pressure due to people now drinking plant milks much more while not Vegan there are a LOT of people going plant based or significantly increasing the amount of plant based meals they eat. So supply chains for animal flesh and secretions are at or v close to a tipping point I believe, we are having an impact that extends outside of Veganism. 🌻🌎✊🏽it’s alway darkest just before dawn,
That framing of, "Will making this put our lives at risk?" loses me, but other aspects of it sound interesting. Not enough for me to plan to watch it this weekend, but if it shows how pressuring companies can work, it sounds *almost* worth watching. (Although, while I understand showing the violence in the industry, after 24 years I don't need to see it anymore.) Are there any other things you'd recommend showing how to put together solid pressure campaigns?
I'm not sure it really shows how pressure campaigns can work, unless you're really paying attention, all the way to the end. But that was kind of the silver lining I took home with me. re: pressure campaigns, I think Center for Story-based Strategy and Ruckus Society have some good materials. And looking at movements outside of our own for inspiration is important. More selfishly, and if you're looking to actually watch something, I think my Season 3 of "Are We Winning" on my RUclips channel does a decent job. As far as documentaries, selfishly again, I like The Animal People because it shows what is possible when it comes to moving massive corporations and industries, but also what are the downfalls and failures in it as well.
@@thecrankyvegan Thanks, Jake -- appreciate it! I still need to see The Animal People. It was RUclips suggesting one of the "Are We Winning" videos that got me here, but I need to go back. Most stuff I currently do is focused on farmed animal sanctuaries. Your videos always get me thinking about how those supportive of sanctuaries (who still eat meat) would support campaigns in the same way some support issues where environmental concerns/veganism vs. corporate greed meet.
If done systematically, as part of other pressure campaigns, it will have an effect. You don't have to look far for proof - look at the war on vivisection in the UK from the 70s to the early 00s. What we do have stats on though, is the more vegan outreach we do, the numbers of animals being killed continues to rise.
@@thecrankyvegan totally different. Vivisection isn't driven directly by consumer demand. A better example is abortion in the USA. Despite Roe v. Wade being ended, the number of abortions has not changed.
@@thecrankyvegan Consumers have the real power. Carl is right. Nothing changes. You base your theory on the scenario where people go plant based, not vegan. Veganism is an ideology. Once you go vegan, you don't look back. Which means that ex-vegans in reality don't exist. Also, in the usa you should do something for gmo foods, because otherwise people will be scared of the lack of nutrients in plants.
@janebarker2844 Start with either ending the subsidies on meat or getting substitute plant based food to have the same subsidies. This will actually reduce demand.
A “simple change in lifestyle”, by that you mean stop eating animals, WILL have an impact. If everyone stopped eating animals and their secretions, the market would dry up. Hopefully PIGNORANT is another nail in the coffin of animal Ag.
Sure, if everyone stopped eating animals, it would of course have an impact. But we can't even get 2% of the global population to stop. How are we going to get 100% or even 50%. Or even 10%? We need another way forward because while on paper, sure, it works. But in reality, it ain't working.
@@thecrankyvegan I'm really curious where you get that 2%. Do you have evidence for that? Because I have seen something like 33% of young people in the uk.
Hey I'm bit late for the discussion. About asking people to change their personal behaviors at the end of the documentary, I think it's the *least* thing we can ask, and that is to hold them accountable, without falling into the wagon like Mexie has pulled. We still need more and more vegans, and that's the one thing we know for sure that can't go wrong. But yes, I agree that vegan outreach alone isn't enough and we need to strategize our activism and not rely solely on simply asking people to go vegan.
i dont think we get anywhere with less than 10% of the population being vegan, so i think its a decent first step to get people on board with it. You cant have 1% change the whole industry
I hear what you say about strategy vs. tactics. And I believe change really is happening in our society. For example, in the 29 years that you've been vegan, there is certainly a lot more awareness of veganism, at least in the consumer realm. It's so much easier at restaurants and grocery stores than it used to be, which I se as an increase in the number of vegans/plant-based people. (But, as you point out, that doesn't necessarily indicate progress in the data for animals.) In the realm of public activism, nowadays there are a lot more people choosing to make a "career" out of being a vegan animal rights advocate. Back in the 1990's, no market existed for "vegan influencers" who solicited donations. The figureheads of the movement were people like John Robbins and Howard Lyman, who had made their wealth from other means. This contrasts with many fake contemporary vegan self-promoters who exploit the established community for their own financial gain, e.g. Wayne Pacelle, Josh Tetrick, Wayne Hsiung, Renee King-Sonnen, Marc Ching, et. al. So, the fact that there is a lot more money now to be made from vegan/AR donors requires us to be discerning about which individuals and organizations truly deserve our support.
The desire to profit off the movement ahead of moving it forward is definitely a big issue. I would agree with you that the awareness of veganism and plantbased eating has risen. But I would disagree that that indicates a rise in the number of vegans. At least in the US, where plant based eating is pretty huge, the percentage of vegans has pretty much been stagnant for the last 20 years, despite such a huge focus in the movement on vegan outreach.
Wait Wayne Hsiung?? You think he does activism to grow his bank account?? Please explain. Homie just spent like two months in jail for the animals, and was planning on happily doing the original five. He seems to me like he prioritizes the victims and is quite selfless. I don’t know about those other people, never heard of them.
I love your "keep fighting" at the end of your videos, but where did the music go? Now there's just a white screen and silence. 😂 And nice video (as always). 👍
Before Kip made Cowspiracy, he starred in a doc about the crisis of food waste. So how can you maintain that an individual consumer choice will make all the difference, when you yourself have documented how much food of all kinds gets purchased wholesale and disposed of on a regular basis when it isn’t sold? That’s my glaring issue with his films.
Your conclusion about the impact of individual lifestyle choice is flawed. Let me explain. Just because the number of animals being killed worldwide is increasing despite the number of vegans increasing _doesn’t_ mean that lifestyle choices aren’t having an impact when it comes to reducing suffering and death to animals. You’re failing to account for population growth. With a growing population, obviously there’s going to be a greater demand for animal products. Juxtaposing the growth rate of vegans with the number of animals killed per year is therefore not how you accurately measure the impact of change by going vegan, since this analysis will be confounded. Instead, what you have to do is compare the growth rate of vegans with the number of animals that _would have been killed_ in the alternate world where this vegan growth rate did not exist. By doing this, we are controlling for the confounding variable of population growth in order to measure the actual impact going vegan has. Once we do this, we see that the total number of animals being killed globally in the alternate world that does not contain the growing number of vegans is greater than the total number of animals killed in the actual world where there is a growing number of vegans, even despite the fact that the number of animals being killed is increasing globally. So while going vegan might not decrease the number of animals being killed when you look at it from a global scale, when you compare it to the alternate world in which you did not go vegan, you’ll see that your going vegan certainly does decrease the total number of animals who would have been bred into existence to be killed. Even though the number of animals being killed globally is increasing and an individual going vegan won’t stop that, what it does do is prevent the overall total from being a little higher than it otherwise would have been, and it is still always better not to add additional numbers to that already increasing number. While reducing the total number of animals being killed globally each year by just a couple hundred doesn’t sound like much when thinking in terms of abstract numbers, we have to consider that these numbers translate directly to the lives of hundreds of individual animals who will be spared the horrors of being held captive in factory farms, subjected to painful mutilations, and ultimately robbed of their existence. Lifestyle choices and thus individuals going vegan therefore *IS* an effective way to reduce overall animal suffering and death. If your claim is that going vegan won’t put the trillion dollar animal ag. industries out of business, then sure. But not owning slaves in 1830 also wouldn’t have put the institution of slavery out of business either. No one is making the claim that an individual not owning slaves is going to overhaul the institution of slavery. But it _will_ spare hundreds of others who would have been the slaves of this individual, just like going vegan spares hundreds of animals who would have been the victims of an individual’s dietary choices. The institutional change will follow once we get enough individuals to go vegan. We aren’t going to change the system if the individuals making up the system can’t even change.
To give an analogy, consider reading this short story: “Once upon a time, there was an old man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach every morning before he began his work. Early one morning, he was walking along the shore after a big storm had passed and found the vast beach littered with starfish as far as the eye could see, stretching in both directions. Off in the distance, the old man noticed a small boy approaching. As the boy walked, he paused every so often and as he grew closer, the man could see that he was occasionally bending down to pick up an object and throw it into the sea. The boy came closer still and the man called out, ‘Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?’ The young boy paused, looked up, and replied ‘Throwing starfish into the ocean. The tide has washed them up onto the beach and they can’t return to the sea by themselves,’ the youth replied. ‘When the sun gets high, they will die, unless I throw them back into the water.’ The old man replied, ‘But there must be tens of thousands of starfish on this beach. I’m afraid you won’t really be able to make much of a difference.’ The boy bent down, picked up yet another starfish and threw it as far as he could into the ocean. Then he turned, smiled and said, ‘It made a difference to that one!’” For my analogy, consider there were hundreds of other people dumping more starfish on the beach so that the overall number of beached starfish was increasing. Does this mean the boy who chooses to throw starfish back into the ocean doesn’t ultimately reduce the number of starfish that would have suffered and died had he chose not to? Of course not! Because had the boy not been on that beach that day, there would have been _even more_ beached starfish, _despite_ the growing number of beached starfish being introduced by people pouring buckets of starfish onto the beach.
I haven’t actually seen it as it’s not available in Canada lol! But yeah I don’t think it’s as life changing as Joey loves to imply and flex. Like joeys videos I think it’s mostly vegans and fans of Joey who actually watched the film.
I know there's some suggestion that the industry is trying to shadowban the film, but I think more than likely, it doesn't really appeal to anyone except activists and Joey fans...
Cool review, but I'm not sure about the conclusion. So, Joey successfully closed down a processing plant and that's more effective than getting consumers to change their practice. But is this true? Let me ask a simple question - has closing that plant (allied with the number of vegans in the country not growing) changed anything at all? As is shown, no. The number of pigs being processed continues to rise. So, where are the pigs going who are not in this now closed plant? I'd suggest the answer is, to all the other remaining plants, because demand remains. And does it help the pigs if there are fewer plants processing an increasing number of pigs? Sadly, I suspect no. Not at all.
@@jonahwhale9047 I guess we simply don't know, but it seems possible that if one processing plant causes pigs to be distressed from everyday handling, then any greater load at another facility might cause more distress. What I am getting at is that without lessening demand, a strategy of closing facilities must eventually founder on practical grounds (no further facilities will be closed) and the fewer facilities there are the greater the risk of poorer treatment. The only strategies that can really make a notable difference are a) legislated closure of the industry (as in the slavery example) and/or b) significantly reduced demand. Which is the more likely or achieveable, at least in the short term?
@@graememcelligott8874 Neither is the honest answer. But the UK government is pursuing the third option, which is keeping people as poor as possible. The only sure indicator that we have, is that the poorer a people are, the less meat they eat; and the wealthier they are, the more meat they eat. Into your mix you need to add two other factors, a) that production will be exported to countries with poorer welfare standards & poorer human rights, & food imported from even further away & b), on the other hand, prior to being legislated out of existence, governmental subsidies would be cut to increase the cost of it, reducing its affordability. As the defence of many for eeating meat is "but it's legal", clearly it cannot be left to a matter of personal choice. Ultimately, it will need to legislated out of existence & criminalized. But the question there is, will civilization last long enough for vegans to gain sufficient political power to do so?
Credit where credit is due, in Australia last year, Chris Delforce and The Farm Transparency Project did a similar investigation of slaughter houses there in 2012, without all the self promotion. It's also a properly registered non-profit, which means that they are accountable, & don't pay personal tax on their income. Under the name Aussie Farms, in 2014 they released the world's first footage of the carbon dioxide gas chambers, so it's a bit of a second hand idea possibly being exploitd for the sake of self-promotion. I tend to think that if an activist is drawing attention to themselves, rather than the cause, they're failing but more concerning are the financial aspects. To the best of my knowledge, Joey keeps his finances unaccountable and non-transparent which suggests that he is managing them as personal income. I don't know where or if he pays taxes but in both the UK and Australia his income is likely to push him into the higher tax bracket. I don't see the point of vegans donating to individuals, if 35 or 40% of that is going to go to the government.
@@thecrankyvegan Strange. I'm guess that RUclips, not you, deleted the second post I left relating to the reports of the recent execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith in USA. I flagged them up because the use of Nitrogen rather than CO2 is considered to be the upmarket, "humane" solution & made a point about how all these campaigns are likely to do is make the industry shift up to using it or other more expensive inert gases instead. And then the fight will start all over again. I've commented a couple of times about it on other channels but they disappeared too. What the hell is going on with YT?
@@thecrankyveganso you think FTP have the right strategy in mind? They seem to try to cover a lot of bases, like filming, outreach (I've done some with them), and various different pressure campaigns (e.g. the campaign against fashion brands to drop crocodile skins), but they also encourage people to go vegan. Though even Chris has become unhappy with how little progress has been made over the recent years (after putting in so much work), so we either need more hands on deck or to try other strategies too.
@@r0bt93 I think they have done good stuff and have been thoughtful and retrospective on their work and how to move it forward. I think part of the challenge is the state of the movement. You can have the greatest campaigns and strategies and tactics, but if there isn't a movement supporting you or taking your tools and running with them, you're kind of stuck. And I think currently the movement predominantly looks towards online influencers and talking heads and street debaters as how we make change. Which puts groups like FTP in a bit of tough spot. But i hope they keep moving forward.
@@thecrankyvegan yeah agreed. Animals Australia are doing great work here too, they support FTP and use their footage to campaign for change. They use things like advertising to get people on board. It's still focused on consumer change though. But at least it gets the public aware and primed for action against these orgs (hopefully). Live export of sheep is something that they've helped push for an end to actually, and now our government has said they will phase it out. That's a win I'd say
so the not so good stuff is thatyou dont belive supply and demand to the companys if in theori everyone went vegan they would still continue even do no proffit cuz the goverment will help them out.... I dont get it. I think you just made the point that there needs to be more vegans to shut down these companies. + if everyone went vegan the "small pieces" like edjucation and law stuff would probebly come in the picture but idk.
Hi Jake I’m a vegan activist from Petaluma California. We would like to have you present at one of our meetings. We have a vegfest also later in the year (Sonoma County). I don’t do Facebook or Twitter. Can we correspond by email? The Vegabond
If it's true that Joey has a bigger following than you then that's a shame. You are the real deal. And if you have an ego I have yet to see it. I have learned so much from you. Thank you.
I'm not convinced that vegan outreach (spreading the vegan philosophy - not diet talk) is the main tactic where most resources and energy are spent in the movement. It certainly isn't true for the nonprofits (PETA etc.). Do you have any data to back up this claim?
On my channel I mainly focus on the grassroots movement. I would agree with you - the larger NGOs focus more on pressure campaigns and they get the wins they want (which, IMO, are pretty welfarist and usually don't interest me). But when we look at who the bigger grassroots groups and influencers are - AV, WTF, Save, and to a lesser extent DxE, Joey Carbstrong, Earthling Ed, everyone who wants to be Joey or Ed and films themselves talking to people on the street, the enormous amount of content creators who focus almost exclusively on plant based content... the grassroots is inundated with vegan outreach, and has been for decades.
My concern is that in all these cases, from PETA down to the latest Joey or Ed clone, we're seeing an increased trend towards reaping personal income from the vegan movement, & that is being established as the template for what "vegan activism" is. It's has become completely unaccountable & non-transparent cashtivism or actorvism, i.e. acting out a well establish script to excite & entertain other vegans who lack the courage to do it themselves. And, beyond the person wealth that the first few to do so will be able to reap, it's a highly inefficient & often even counter productive. With the big groups, how much of what they do is just to bring in money to pay for their huge overheads & salaries buy giving their supporters minor "wins" they can feel good about. With the social media entrepreneurs, how much of it is just having to keep in the news, keep their supporters entertained, & feeling like they are contributing to something worthy? How much of it is just drama making? How much of it is just for the camera, rather than the cause? The defence to that is the claim that they "have made people vegan", although we have no idea how many, no idea how many remain vegan, nor the quality of their commitment. In general though, I disagree with that. They don't make people go vegan. The quality of the idea, the concept of veganism, the facts & arguments that have been developed by others over the decades, is what makes people ready to become vegan, become vegan. It's just taking profit from the work of all of those previous generations of vegans who built the movement up into what it is today at their own person costs. "Reap the fruit" from all of the seeds they planted. This is one area where I am more ciitical of Joey coming over to the UK, while being financed by some venture capitalist, the single most vegan saturated nation in the world, where there is already near universal recognition of what it means. It's the last place on earth that needs commercialise activism.
Who says vegan outreach is the only tactic? Why do you bash it at every opportunity, claiming that vegan activists say things they don't actually say? And even if some have a big mouth and say those things, what's the problem as long as they are doing their work? You also acknowledge that we need different tactics, yet you always belittle one of them. It seems personal. I'd say changing people's minds (you don't need them to go vegan, you just need them to agree with it) also helps pressure campaigns. I think saying that vegan street outreach only works if people go vegan on the spot is disingenuous.
Good job ! For me i try to be vegetarian (i have stopped meat from 2 years ago), i think we should just allow people to eat eggs, its good for health (give vitamins and natural B12), cheap, and its the only animal product which can be made without animal suffering, if we upgrade the living of chicken, and without killing them when they are too old to make eggs...i work on creating a farm to produce such eggs, 100% cruelty free.... i think its the better solution for humans and animals...and it breaks all the anti vegan/vegetarian argument we always see in every debate : "without meat you don't have proteins and B12 needed to be in perfect health (which is a real fact)" If we find a solution to stop this argument, there is no longer a single valid one to defend the exploitation of animals...so i think eggs are the solution...(and we need eggs to make cakes and many meals too)
Eggs Do cause hens to suffer from painful infections along the reproductive tract especially at the cloaca, osteoporosis that can cause painful sternums, apart from being denied hardly any space to even open a wing. How would you like to stand shoulder to shoulder to other humans 24/7 in an overcrowded wire mesh prison?
@@lauratanln its not a problem if we allow enough space for hens, living in natural wild fields with large space in nature...there are hens who live in cages or in tiny spaces, which i think its very bad and i condemn this ! but there are others solutions, we can eat eggs from hens living in good conditions, and without suffering ...we need to forbide bad living conditions for chickens, like shoulder to shoulder exactly as you said... and there will be no more suffering if chicken live in natural fields with big space to move, like a little forest and a bit of field with fosters... so in this case, we could have eggs to eat, without any suffering for the hens.. its my goal, i try to run a bizness like this, to sell eggs 100% cruelty free..and even, when the chicken will be to old to produce eggs, i will never kill them, but i will let them live their old day free, in nature, without any obligation... i think its possible to sell eggs like this, 100% cruelty free...its a win win for animal and for the humans...
@@grifyn882 You can run a farm you described, but the costs will be so high that nobody will be able to afford the eggs you sell. Land is not cheap and you need to protect your animals from other animals. And chickens do fall sick or develop health problems and conditions like people do. So it is just impossible when you want to profit from them.
1. We don't have the right to take anything from another being without consent. 2.Humans have manipulated birds' bodies to cause their reproductive systems to overproduce, which causes them pain and diseases that lead to great suffering and early death. 3. Eating the product of someone's ovulation is not natural for humans, nor is it healthy. 4. Please consider the wishes of the hens and not your selfish desires.
@@lauratanln i have started to study how to run such a farm, with the best living conditions for the animals and without any killing...obviously, except if some hens become ill and if there isn't any possible way to cure them... there are diseases for humans and animal from the beginning of life on earth, and sadly some will die, we cant cure 100%diseases, its life on this planet... for the land, fields and undergrowth, i have the chance to live in a country where in certains areas lands are very cheap (some parts in center of France like correze, perigord, auvergne, where few people live), and even better/cheaper for lands which are not good to produce food agriculture...a few thousand euros are enough to buy lands ti begin an exploitation... hens have the advantage to be able to eat alone, in part...they search the ground on the fields and undergrowth and eat worms, insects, grass, seeds...if they are too numerous, i will have to supplement them with purchased (biological obviously) seeds... My goal is not to make profit or big money, i don't care of that, but i would like to change the mentality of people and try to make them become vegetarian (or vegan)...i just need minimum money to live, and the state already pay me what i need to survivre, even without working... i think they are plenty of vegetarians and maybe vegans people who are often from upper class, so who have the money to pay extra costs to eat eggs a price more high that what already exist in supermarkets...they would like to do it, but the problem is that there isn't any supply existing...(i have the proof i have discussed with them an they told me they would be ok to pay more to be able to eat cruelty free no killing eggs) non vegetarian people pay their entrecote or meat like 8 $ (or 7 euro and even more) the piece of meat...so could pay the same for 2 eggs...(to have good nutriments, all the best proteins, natural B12, etc...) and for the taste too ! eggs are delicious and can be cooked in many different forms :)
I really can't understand how Joey has the scruples to openly state that he shutdowned the Pilgrim's gas chamber in Manchester. Pilgrim's has been announcing the closure of a third of its facilities for some time due to unfavorable market conditions and low profitability, and the closure of the Manchester facility was an integral part of their plans, nothing related to any of Joeys's initiative or action. taking credit for the closure of the Manchester facility is a flagrant lie to both, his fans, and the wider public, that casts a really sad shadow on veganism in general.
'a face saving move', what an unfortunate choice of words. what should Pilgrims be ashamed of? they didn't accidentally kill a couple of pigs. they are a registered business, completely legal, with a clearly defined goal, which is not even controversial and widely known to everyone. It has been a long time since Pilgrims publicly announced the closure of its facilities owing to financial issues. Joey, rather deceitfully if you ask me, just misused the closing date as his credit. It's like claiming the rain is caused by Joey's rainmaking dance -- after the rain fell.
you mean Joey's massive attempt at flexing, which could be characterized more as his biography than a documentary? in this documentary, more space was devoted to Joey's virtue signaling than to the pig industry. in my opinion, this documentary didn't even justify the money that was invested in it.
maybe because Joey represents everything a vegan should not be? whatever influence Joey had on anyone was entirely accidental and for the wrong reasons. in addition to the fact that he did immense damage to veganism, it seems that he himself benefited the most from his 'activism', which makes his adherence to the vegan objectives very questionable. P.S. I'm not a vegan, and I can't tell you firsthand why vegans insist on tearing each other down, at least not without speculating about it.
It's his career I guess. I think that really clouds the actions of full time activists. This is his is source of income, boosting his image is securing his income, its a career move in a way. I also found his girlfriend to be a bit fake on the camera, she really didn't play an important role not sure why she was even there tbh.
Like he said, once you've been vegan for nearly 3 decades, watching yet another reel of animal abuse has limited valued. So he skipped it and moved onto the salient parts.
Meat eater here, (I know bad for me), but my view as to the problem with 'exposing the meat industry ', is that practices towards more human faming aren't the goal, the goal seems to be to want to end the industry altogether, and that's why IMO it will never be successful, because people will always eat meat.....and thus my problem veganism, is it seems ther is little to no room for compromise....which is a shame because I would love to see animals treated better, (even tho I still see them as food,) I think the way we raise and slaughter them can be drastically improved in many cases, joey himself has said he rather see these animals continued to be treated badly, then to reach compromise, which to me if you truly love animals, wouldn't be a bad place to start.....but then again what do I know, I'm just a pignorant meat eater....gl!
Where did Joey say he rather see animals continue to be treated badly than to reach compromise? I would really like to know. As for wishing animals to be treated better, the expenses and costs would be so high that few people will be able to "afford". So it's just wishful thinking.
Massive respect to Joey and Dan for risking their lives for Pignorant. For those saying that Joey was just showing off cos it showed more of the operation than it did of the gas chamber footage - who is going to watch 1 hour 40 minutes of pigs in gas chambers? This way it was more like a movie plot so keeps you watching. The horrifying footage they, and the Australian activists, got of the pigs in the gas chambers will go some way, at least, to silence those who claim killing by gas is painless. We need to keep shining a light on this business. Evil hates the light.
Some of the Australian footage is brutal. We've heard of pigs ripping them feet before. In one case, one ripped it testicles off.
Exactly! Evil hates the light. That's why there is such a thing as ag gag.
It was also about the systems surrounding all of this, the fake welfare certificates and how everything is hidden and the effort required to expose it and so on, and not just exposing the gas chambers.
Do whatever action you are capable of doing. Even if it's tiny it's still better than doing nothing.
Documentaries do a great job of converting people to veganism. Most of the vegan activists I know went vegan because of documentaries. You seem to be a strong proponent of systematic change through protests, but who's doing those? Vegans. Great work, Joey.
Veganism and animal rights activism is the fringe of the fringe, when it comes to social justice movements. So yeah, documentaries play a good sized part in the make up of the movement - in making people plant-based and to a lesser extent, into animal activists, but there aren't exactly a lot of us in the movement. So to say "our movement is what it is because of documentaries got people involved" isn't a resounding endorsement based on the size and growth of our movement.
I'm pro-vegan outreach - it's important. But by itself, it isn't going to achieve anything. We need to be focusing on systemic change through a wide variety of tactics (including protests and education - again, those are tactics, not strategies), and through our campaigning, we can and will also make vegans.
If we are just focusing on making vegans, who statistically don't stick around that long, we are taking a very roundabout way to hopefully get to the bits that matter. But if we go straight to the point where we can make tangible change, AND make vegans in that space, we are doing two things at once. To me that sounds much more strategic.
@@thecrankyvegan I agree that many different approaches are necessary.
@@seankennedy2856 - totally. But when I think we can combine all those approaches into a strategic laser focus - that's when communities can start to make important tangible change, and in a timely fashion. ✊
@@thecrankyvegan i wanna preface this by saying i don't have a great answer, i just have the question. but ok- i fully agree with you that pressure campaigns and supply side activism are effective ways to bring about change. but the change they bring about is very slow. maybe a designer will drop fur after 3 months of protesting or an animal testing lab will go under after 2 years of secondary and tertiary targeting. and those things DO contribute to animal liberation, but only a small amount. to speed up the rate of change, through both supply side work (pressure campaigns) and demand side work (outreach, cultivated meats, etc) we need to grow our movement. how should we do that if not outreach? how do we get enough people to take on this enormous industy and win?
@@thecrankyveganSocial justice movements are going nowhere without the essential ingredient of veganism. In fact they are counter revolutionaries to the only revolution in town. Selfishness, greed, and fear of fundamental change is what is holding these "revolutionaries" back. They are dragging the revolution down. Now, .You say that people are not going vegan in large numbers and that is true but it is understandable. If you observe people coming and going out of flesh food outlets for some time you will be horrified at the scale of the obese epidemic that has engulfed the human animal population. That is why the numbers of other animals being consumed is continuing to rise.. We need to get people to understand that they are losing their spirituality and that they are turning into demonic monsters. It is true! That is how serious things are! Well, I have booked my ticket to go and see Christspiracy. If we do not get this spiritual thing right then we are all done for. Thank you for the video.💚❤🩵
Sigh...
and
👍 Whole food plant based for the environment and health; vegan for the victims!
Well said
Pignorant is by far the best documentary out there to appeal to the non-vegans of today. It's not made for vegans. I really think your criticisms are unjust and out of touch.
I don't think vegans are the intended audience. But that's who it is. And I think that's the case for almost all of Joey's (and other vegan influencers) content. It's mostly vegans watching it. And I think that's probably the reason why it's not showing up on Amazon's search pages much - Joey fans and vegans went and watched it the first couple of days, and then it dried up, and the algorithm responded. But I'm open to me being "out of touch", feel free to explain how!
I cancelled my Amazon account years ago, so I won’t see this doc. It’s my little protest move against wealthy assholes like Bezos.
@@thecrankyveganI think the problem was that Prime video sucks and no one watches stuff on that platform. A Netflix slot would have yielded different fruits.
Gamechangers is a good example.
The film is not directed at vegans it is to bring awareness to the public about the dreadful way pigs are treated. I think as a vegan you should support anything that educates people on this issue.
I can’t watch it, I am far too sensitive to animal suffering it screws me up, but bravo to them for doing this
Hope you're vegan. Many avoid watching just to avoid feeling guilt.
@@lauratanln yes am vegan so dont need to see it.. as am already converted, i am sensitive to it because i see them as animals not as foodlike some people sadly see them as
Liked the video and liked pignorant
thanks ✊🏻Both can happen! And to be clear, i didn't dislike it. Like I said, I think the "how it was done" was really interesting.
I can't count how many times I've heard a vegan say, they went vegan because of a documentary or because of Gary's video. Dominion and Gary are the 2 I hear most often.
I've been recently doing outreach because it seems to me that having more vegans is the obvious solution, and because it's something easy that I can do, like you said. But I don't want to feel like I'm wasting my time doing this. If having (arguably) more vegans isn't helping the animals, then what will? What would be some examples of effective strategies that caused social change in past movements? I'm curious!
You should heartily validate yourself. Having more vegans is certainly part of the solution. If there is only one vegan today and two tomorrow, that's progress. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. After thousands of years of animal abuse and animal consumption, that veganism and animal rights is in today's vocabulary is a big step forward. I rarely heard the words "veganism" and "animal rights" 50 years ago. Now I often hear them. Progress is painfully slow in this hideous world, but there is progress. You're not wasting your time. Just thought alone changes the world, for better or worse. Quantum physicists have proven that.
I appreciate you doing something that feels productive!
So the general idea is that if we create enough vegans, we will start to see a drop in the demand, which will effect the supply. But a few things are happening. 1) After doing outreach for over 20 years in some countries, we don't really have an influx of vegans. We sometimes see a spike in plant based eaters, but statistically they don't stick around for long. Which means, at best, we are spinning our wheels in the sand. We don't have the numbers or resources to compete with population growth, recidivism and desire for animals. 2) If we *were* to see a shift in the demand due to the growth of vegans, subsidies would kick in. Currently in the US, we are talking tens of billions of dollars a year (last i checked) to pay farmers to continue despite falling numbers. And our outreach can't compete with that. 3) I mentioned this in my video, but despite what seems like a current influx of vegans, more animals are being killed. And that sometimes is in part because the meat and dairy is being exported. Take New Zealand for instance - they export 95% of all their milk. Unless you can change the industry and / or laws (both of which is done via pressure campaigns), it wouldn't really matter how many vegans were in NZ.
So what has made just about 100% of social change? Pressure campaigns. Which is a focused effort to change or end a practice, business or industry. They are used to pass laws, oust politicians, change corporate or industry policies, close down places, get plant based foods into universities - you name it. If you can name a success, I would bet it involved a strategic campaign. They are done by utilizing a wide range of strategic tactics, instead of just one. So that means people might be protesting, writing, fundraising, petitioning, educating, all in concert with one another, all for the same goal. Which also means that as we do our pressure campaigns, we can be doing vegan outreach as part of them. That way we are being laser focused, but also doing the needed outreach as well.
In the case of the film, the slaughterhouse didn't close because enough people stopped eating pigs, it's because Joey et al. did a pressure campaign and applied enough pressure to help get the place closed. But for whatever reason, Joey's film suggests we should be doing the education rather than the campaigning, despite the fact that it was the campaigning that got the job done. Thus my critique.
Sorry that was so long.
@@markj7612 The problem is that if there's one vegan today and now there's 2 tomorrow, it's not really progress. Partly because statistically in a year, that second vegan won't be vegan anymore. But also because in that 24 hour time period, there's not 385,000 new babies, and I guarantee 99.99% of them are all going to be omnivores. So not are we not only keeping up, we are falling behind in huge ways, each and every day.
@@thecrankyvegan Obviously you have done your homework, and thank you for sharing your perspective with us, and thank you for replying to subscribers/ comments. I am aware that, worldwide, meat production is on the rise, particularly in China and other countries that are rising in standard of living. Affluence is equated with ability to eat more meat.
However, my comment was directed to the individual who wonders whether or not his/her activities are furthering the cause for veganism. The fact is that an individual has enormous power, even if he does nothing more than meditate and envision a world without animal abuse. All thought, imagination and intention are creative. They shape the future. That has been proven by quantum physicists and cutting-edge research that is revealing the impact of thought and intention on the environment and everything in the environment. There are many books on this subject, and Lynne McTaggart's "The Power of Eight" is a good place to start.
The world is changing, at an unprecedented rate. Slavery,, once the norm in the US, was abolished. Once any kind of animal abuse was tolerated, now there are laws against some forms of animal abuse (murdering animals for food is not considered abuse). Israel has been committing genocide on Palestinians for 75 years and only a handful of people said anything about it. Today millions of people are protesting the current genocide. Today, in view of peoples' unwillingness to change their palate desires and industrialization of mass murder, the cause for liberation of animals appear to be hopeless. The prospects for social change - the struggle against ignorance - has always seemed hopeless. Then individuals like Joey Carbstrong appeared and, against odds, began fanning the embers of change.
You are knowledgeable about the best approach to furthering the cause. I am not. I am knowledgeable about the power of an individual. And I remind people that Mahatma Gandhi. who weighed 98 pounds and possessed nothing more than sandals, a pair of glasses and a loincloth, was responsible for driving the British empire out of India. Martin Luther King and other civil-rights activists faced formidable odds. Yes, in the context of demand for meat and meat production, we are going backwards. However, veganism and animal rights have appeared in the human vocabulary, and, as Victor Hugo said, "Nothing else in the world - not all of the armies - is so powerful as an idea whose time has come". Animal rights is an idea whose time has come. By the end of this century, most of humanity will either be vegan or humanity will be extinct - because animal agriculture is destroying the earth. We will see whether or not humanity, with its back against the wall, will choose to go extinct. Meanwhile, the individual vegan should remember that he/she is powerful and is offsetting the negative energy of thousands of carnivores. He/She is making a difference. That is not bliss-ninny, new-age thinking. It is a fact. Sages have been stating it as a fact for thousands of years. Today the new sciences are proving it.
Making people aware of oppression and educating them have always been an integral part of social change. In the early feminist movement A LOT of effort was put into making women realize that they were oppressed by the pioneer feminist activists (many believed all the appeals to tradition and nature). We need to challenge cultural speciesism in the same way, by educating the nonvegans.
Good review.
Do you think repeating what they did in as many (or strategic) slaughter houses the next best activist approach?
If you had the tools to organize and orchestrate something similar, then what would your ideas be?
I think generally speaking it worked because it was the right time and place - people hadn't seen such awful animal use before really. But if the playbook is used over and over, I think people will become unphased by it. So while I think we can replicate it to a certain extent, we need to continue to move our strategies and tactics forward to be more creative, more advanced and more flexible. And part of that is creating a movement that is on board with that. And I don't think we are there currently.
I disagree. Every vegan, by default, causes less animals to die per year. Every life saved matters. These documentaries do help. If there's another strategy, then work on that strategy too. Add. But do not take away. Making people vegan saves animal lives. Human lives also. To stop advocating and doing outreach will not help any life be saved.
First off, I'm not advocating not to do it. I'm advocating for us to learn the difference between a tactic and a strategy. Vegan outreach is a tactic. One tactic won't work by itself. That's why Joey educating people about pigs didn't close the slaughterhouse. But when you combine multiple tactics, education, protest, media etc. as part of a strategic campaign, that works. That's how Joey helped close that place down.
Second, there's no one at the farms slowing down breeding or milking, or taking animals off of trucks because we made a new vegan. More animals are killed every year, even when huge scale interruptions happen to the system, like a pandemic. And that's because of subsidies. There are millions of pounds and gallons of meat cheese and dairy in the united states being stored and rotting because the government pays them to produce it, if the industry starts to slip. And that erases, and then some, any forward advance vegan outreach makes.
@nkyvegan I get that. But even with those odds stacked against vegans. We do still make a difference. Eating meat and drinking milk is not going to help the cause of animals. It makes no sense. We face down each enemy separately. People are one area. The government is another area. Each one is worth separate attention, tactics, and strategies. There is evidence that plant-based milks, for example have cut into the business of cow milk exploitation. It does work. It is making a change. One way to pressure government, is to make more people vegan. Because more people will care about how unjust subsidies are. More vegans are needed. Not less.
The very fact that you even care - for example - about fighting against government subsidies. Is because you yourself are a vegan. If you weren't vegan, you wouldn't care. It is important to inspire people to care about animals. To become vegan. It matters. We all want the same thing. But to get to that point, we need more of us. Not less. The more, the better. There is strength in unity. People will care about corrupt lobbyists and government subsidies, when they actually come to care about an animal's life. As long as that doesn't happen, they just treat them as objects. Why not use every tool at our disposal. Every person matters in this fight.
@@thecrankyveganwould you suggest going into politics as an effective action? There's a party in Australia called the Animal Justice Party which is growing and achieving some great outcomes, like for lab animals.
@@WhiteHorseStudioArt of course being vegan is important. I'm not saying people shouldn't be or we shouldn't talk about it. What I'm saying is, relying on talking to people to get them to go vegan and change a lifestyle, to shift the demand side of supply and demand, is a losing strategy every time. I can't think of a time that has ever worked by itself.
But I would push back that only vegans care about or work on animal issues. I would suggest actually that some really big victories and significant pieces in regards to animal use has come from people that aren't vegan. I wouldn't count them out so quickly.
@homie3461 yeah there's so many very crap politicians, and though I'm sure they put in a lot of work, I don't think it would be particularly hard. Though you'd want a thick skin. Yeah I mean the animal justice party here is basically the vegan party, and as the cranky vegan has said, we aren't exactly doing great at producing enough vegans. But I don't know if I'd want to compromise by joining a bigger party with some policies I disagree with.
Where is 3 minute Thursday? I miss you buddy!
I hate shorts and tend to ignore them, but will be better at watching them. As far as the documentary goes, I do not need to watch that stuff, though I applaud Joey for his efforts, but hope that thems that need to watch it find it, and that it prompts them to help us tackle the systems that permit animal use. It doesn't work. It's such a terrible waste of energy and I know that Joey has more recently been talking about strategies and tactics for attacking systems. Hopefully, he focuses more on that in future. Thanks for posting!
Watching more shorts is exactly what they want you to do! Don't succumb! haha
@@thecrankyvegan Like others have been saying, I think you need to refine your shorts to avoid the bottom 1/3 being obscured by all the junk YT overlays on them.
I don't think looking at animals killed is necessarily a helpful metric to guage success. Meat consumption in countries like the UK and Germany is down and so exports are up. The industries are shifting to other markets. I don't think that's a knock against the effectiveness of the movement.
It's also weird to say the documentary is more geared towards vegan activists, but then also say you skipped through a good portion because it was footage you're already aware of. I think it struck a good balance between interesting to vegans and good info for non vegans. I still run into people every week that are unaware of CO2 gas chambers.
I don't think the documentary is perfect but we need things like this to keep the stories in the news and to show people these practices are local to them and still happening everywhere.
I can't tell if you're serious or just being contrarian for clicks. Systemic change always trails a shift in societal opinion. The surest way to end an injustice is to have enough people oppose it that they cannot be ignored. We need to approach this problem from both sides until there is an intersection of the graph of individuals demanding change and the line of corporations feeling the pressure.
I would suggest going and looking at some of the bigger advancements other movements have made and see if they achieved those things by talking to people and educating them and then won because enough people were on their side. it almost never works that way. It's a small vocal minority that force the hand of their intended target that brings about the change. And then the public usually gets on board. Look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the US to end segregation. 66% of white folks in the south were opposed to it. But through pressure campaigns, the activists forced the government's hand to end it. And then decades later, a huge majority of the population look back at that time in disgust. I would suggest that what you are proposing is not only wrong, but the exact reverse of how change is made. So I would say I'm being serious, not being contrarian for clicks, and i'm basing that looking at how social change has been historically made over time.
@@thecrankyvegan If only 66% of people ate meat, then ending animal agriculture would be much easier.
@@TXRhody // obviously. But so far we are at about 1-2% in the united states and in most countries in the world that has an animal rights movement. The highest we have ever had in the history of our movement that i'm aware of, was around 8% but that dropped to 4% a year or two later. And this is after 20+ years of actual vegan campaigning and over 60 years of a modern animal rights movement. So 44%? Good luck. But we don't have time for that.
I understand your position, because you of course totally right, but are you suggesting that Joey, for example, should put his focus on something else? Because what he's doing is definitely working, even if just at a small scale. How do you see yourself being part of this radical change through the government? I would love to know. Thank you @@thecrankyvegan
Soooo RUclips keeps deleting my comments
I've just experienced it too. No idea what's going on with the YT algorithm but it's getting worse & is impinging on serious discussions about these issues.
Just to be clear, the same is happening to me. I'm not deleting or banning anyone...
Did you put a link in your comment? I find it deletes comments with a URL :/. Must be RUclips trying to keep us on RUclips!
I’m a 39 year Vegan and while I agree with you that Veganism isn’t lowering overall numbers of animals being eaten, because more and more animals are being slaughtered every year. BUT animal ag is under extreme pressure due to people now drinking plant milks much more while not Vegan there are a LOT of people going plant based or significantly increasing the amount of plant based meals they eat. So supply chains for animal flesh and secretions are at or v close to a tipping point I believe, we are having an impact that extends outside of Veganism. 🌻🌎✊🏽it’s alway darkest just before dawn,
That framing of, "Will making this put our lives at risk?" loses me, but other aspects of it sound interesting. Not enough for me to plan to watch it this weekend, but if it shows how pressuring companies can work, it sounds *almost* worth watching. (Although, while I understand showing the violence in the industry, after 24 years I don't need to see it anymore.) Are there any other things you'd recommend showing how to put together solid pressure campaigns?
I'm not sure it really shows how pressure campaigns can work, unless you're really paying attention, all the way to the end. But that was kind of the silver lining I took home with me.
re: pressure campaigns, I think Center for Story-based Strategy and Ruckus Society have some good materials. And looking at movements outside of our own for inspiration is important. More selfishly, and if you're looking to actually watch something, I think my Season 3 of "Are We Winning" on my RUclips channel does a decent job. As far as documentaries, selfishly again, I like The Animal People because it shows what is possible when it comes to moving massive corporations and industries, but also what are the downfalls and failures in it as well.
@@thecrankyvegan Thanks, Jake -- appreciate it! I still need to see The Animal People. It was RUclips suggesting one of the "Are We Winning" videos that got me here, but I need to go back.
Most stuff I currently do is focused on farmed animal sanctuaries. Your videos always get me thinking about how those supportive of sanctuaries (who still eat meat) would support campaigns in the same way some support issues where environmental concerns/veganism vs. corporate greed meet.
@@ChristopherGronlund ✊
Shutting down one abbatoir, or dozens, will not reduce the number of animals being killed.
If done systematically, as part of other pressure campaigns, it will have an effect. You don't have to look far for proof - look at the war on vivisection in the UK from the 70s to the early 00s.
What we do have stats on though, is the more vegan outreach we do, the numbers of animals being killed continues to rise.
@@thecrankyvegan totally different. Vivisection isn't driven directly by consumer demand. A better example is abortion in the USA. Despite Roe v. Wade being ended, the number of abortions has not changed.
Adding matching plant based subsidies to fake meats and other processed products, in contrast, would shift the supply demand curve.
@@thecrankyvegan
Consumers have the real power.
Carl is right. Nothing changes.
You base your theory on the scenario where people go plant based, not vegan.
Veganism is an ideology. Once you go vegan, you don't look back.
Which means that ex-vegans in reality don't exist.
Also, in the usa you should do something for gmo foods, because otherwise people will be scared of the lack of nutrients in plants.
@janebarker2844 Start with either ending the subsidies on meat or getting substitute plant based food to have the same subsidies. This will actually reduce demand.
Respect to all of you ❤❤❤❤
A “simple change in lifestyle”, by that you mean stop eating animals, WILL have an impact. If everyone stopped eating animals and their secretions, the market would dry up. Hopefully PIGNORANT is another nail in the coffin of animal Ag.
Sure, if everyone stopped eating animals, it would of course have an impact. But we can't even get 2% of the global population to stop. How are we going to get 100% or even 50%. Or even 10%? We need another way forward because while on paper, sure, it works. But in reality, it ain't working.
@@thecrankyvegan
I'm really curious where you get that 2%.
Do you have evidence for that?
Because I have seen something like 33% of young people in the uk.
Hey I'm bit late for the discussion. About asking people to change their personal behaviors at the end of the documentary, I think it's the *least* thing we can ask, and that is to hold them accountable, without falling into the wagon like Mexie has pulled. We still need more and more vegans, and that's the one thing we know for sure that can't go wrong. But yes, I agree that vegan outreach alone isn't enough and we need to strategize our activism and not rely solely on simply asking people to go vegan.
i dont think we get anywhere with less than 10% of the population being vegan, so i think its a decent first step to get people on board with it. You cant have 1% change the whole industry
I hear what you say about strategy vs. tactics.
And I believe change really is happening in our society. For example, in the 29 years that you've been vegan, there is certainly a lot more awareness of veganism, at least in the consumer realm. It's so much easier at restaurants and grocery stores than it used to be, which I se as an increase in the number of vegans/plant-based people. (But, as you point out, that doesn't necessarily indicate progress in the data for animals.)
In the realm of public activism, nowadays there are a lot more people choosing to make a "career" out of being a vegan animal rights advocate. Back in the 1990's, no market existed for "vegan influencers" who solicited donations. The figureheads of the movement were people like John Robbins and Howard Lyman, who had made their wealth from other means. This contrasts with many fake contemporary vegan self-promoters who exploit the established community for their own financial gain, e.g. Wayne Pacelle, Josh Tetrick, Wayne Hsiung, Renee King-Sonnen, Marc Ching, et. al. So, the fact that there is a lot more money now to be made from vegan/AR donors requires us to be discerning about which individuals and organizations truly deserve our support.
The desire to profit off the movement ahead of moving it forward is definitely a big issue.
I would agree with you that the awareness of veganism and plantbased eating has risen. But I would disagree that that indicates a rise in the number of vegans. At least in the US, where plant based eating is pretty huge, the percentage of vegans has pretty much been stagnant for the last 20 years, despite such a huge focus in the movement on vegan outreach.
Well said.
Wait Wayne Hsiung?? You think he does activism to grow his bank account?? Please explain. Homie just spent like two months in jail for the animals, and was planning on happily doing the original five. He seems to me like he prioritizes the victims and is quite selfless. I don’t know about those other people, never heard of them.
@@christinabellini537Hsiung is sitting on over 5 million dollars in his "Friends of DXE" account.
I love your "keep fighting" at the end of your videos, but where did the music go? Now there's just a white screen and silence. 😂
And nice video (as always). 👍
Before Kip made Cowspiracy, he starred in a doc about the crisis of food waste. So how can you maintain that an individual consumer choice will make all the difference, when you yourself have documented how much food of all kinds gets purchased wholesale and disposed of on a regular basis when it isn’t sold? That’s my glaring issue with his films.
Your conclusion about the impact of individual lifestyle choice is flawed. Let me explain.
Just because the number of animals being killed worldwide is increasing despite the number of vegans increasing _doesn’t_ mean that lifestyle choices aren’t having an impact when it comes to reducing suffering and death to animals. You’re failing to account for population growth. With a growing population, obviously there’s going to be a greater demand for animal products. Juxtaposing the growth rate of vegans with the number of animals killed per year is therefore not how you accurately measure the impact of change by going vegan, since this analysis will be confounded. Instead, what you have to do is compare the growth rate of vegans with the number of animals that _would have been killed_ in the alternate world where this vegan growth rate did not exist. By doing this, we are controlling for the confounding variable of population growth in order to measure the actual impact going vegan has.
Once we do this, we see that the total number of animals being killed globally in the alternate world that does not contain the growing number of vegans is greater than the total number of animals killed in the actual world where there is a growing number of vegans, even despite the fact that the number of animals being killed is increasing globally.
So while going vegan might not decrease the number of animals being killed when you look at it from a global scale, when you compare it to the alternate world in which you did not go vegan, you’ll see that your going vegan certainly does decrease the total number of animals who would have been bred into existence to be killed. Even though the number of animals being killed globally is increasing and an individual going vegan won’t stop that, what it does do is prevent the overall total from being a little higher than it otherwise would have been, and it is still always better not to add additional numbers to that already increasing number. While reducing the total number of animals being killed globally each year by just a couple hundred doesn’t sound like much when thinking in terms of abstract numbers, we have to consider that these numbers translate directly to the lives of hundreds of individual animals who will be spared the horrors of being held captive in factory farms, subjected to painful mutilations, and ultimately robbed of their existence.
Lifestyle choices and thus individuals going vegan therefore *IS* an effective way to reduce overall animal suffering and death. If your claim is that going vegan won’t put the trillion dollar animal ag. industries out of business, then sure. But not owning slaves in 1830 also wouldn’t have put the institution of slavery out of business either. No one is making the claim that an individual not owning slaves is going to overhaul the institution of slavery. But it _will_ spare hundreds of others who would have been the slaves of this individual, just like going vegan spares hundreds of animals who would have been the victims of an individual’s dietary choices. The institutional change will follow once we get enough individuals to go vegan. We aren’t going to change the system if the individuals making up the system can’t even change.
To give an analogy, consider reading this short story:
“Once upon a time, there was an old man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach every morning before he began his work. Early one morning, he was walking along the shore after a big storm had passed and found the vast beach littered with starfish as far as the eye could see, stretching in both directions. Off in the distance, the old man noticed a small boy approaching. As the boy walked, he paused every so often and as he grew closer, the man could see that he was occasionally bending down to pick up an object and throw it into the sea. The boy came closer still and the man called out, ‘Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?’
The young boy paused, looked up, and replied ‘Throwing starfish into the ocean. The tide has washed them up onto the beach and they can’t return to the sea by themselves,’ the youth replied. ‘When the sun gets high, they will die, unless I throw them back into the water.’
The old man replied, ‘But there must be tens of thousands of starfish on this beach. I’m afraid you won’t really be able to make much of a difference.’
The boy bent down, picked up yet another starfish and threw it as far as he could into the ocean. Then he turned, smiled and said, ‘It made a difference to that one!’”
For my analogy, consider there were hundreds of other people dumping more starfish on the beach so that the overall number of beached starfish was increasing. Does this mean the boy who chooses to throw starfish back into the ocean doesn’t ultimately reduce the number of starfish that would have suffered and died had he chose not to? Of course not! Because had the boy not been on that beach that day, there would have been _even more_ beached starfish, _despite_ the growing number of beached starfish being introduced by people pouring buckets of starfish onto the beach.
I haven’t actually seen it as it’s not available in Canada lol! But yeah I don’t think it’s as life changing as Joey loves to imply and flex. Like joeys videos I think it’s mostly vegans and fans of Joey who actually watched the film.
I know there's some suggestion that the industry is trying to shadowban the film, but I think more than likely, it doesn't really appeal to anyone except activists and Joey fans...
I'm in Canada as well, i have hypothetically found it on ☠️bay, and other streaming platform, seriously easy to find.
You'll find it on YIFY, aka YTS.
I loved Pignorant! The footage Joey got at risk to his own freedom was disturbing and eye openkng for many.
How come you stopped posting :(
Cool review, but I'm not sure about the conclusion. So, Joey successfully closed down a processing plant and that's more effective than getting consumers to change their practice. But is this true? Let me ask a simple question - has closing that plant (allied with the number of vegans in the country not growing) changed anything at all? As is shown, no. The number of pigs being processed continues to rise. So, where are the pigs going who are not in this now closed plant? I'd suggest the answer is, to all the other remaining plants, because demand remains. And does it help the pigs if there are fewer plants processing an increasing number of pigs? Sadly, I suspect no. Not at all.
It probably worsens things for them slightly, e.g. requiring more trucking around the country, then more rapid/careless handling at the new plants.
@@jonahwhale9047 I guess we simply don't know, but it seems possible that if one processing plant causes pigs to be distressed from everyday handling, then any greater load at another facility might cause more distress. What I am getting at is that without lessening demand, a strategy of closing facilities must eventually founder on practical grounds (no further facilities will be closed) and the fewer facilities there are the greater the risk of poorer treatment. The only strategies that can really make a notable difference are a) legislated closure of the industry (as in the slavery example) and/or b) significantly reduced demand. Which is the more likely or achieveable, at least in the short term?
@@graememcelligott8874 Neither is the honest answer. But the UK government is pursuing the third option, which is keeping people as poor as possible. The only sure indicator that we have, is that the poorer a people are, the less meat they eat; and the wealthier they are, the more meat they eat.
Into your mix you need to add two other factors, a) that production will be exported to countries with poorer welfare standards & poorer human rights, & food imported from even further away & b), on the other hand, prior to being legislated out of existence, governmental subsidies would be cut to increase the cost of it, reducing its affordability.
As the defence of many for eeating meat is "but it's legal", clearly it cannot be left to a matter of personal choice. Ultimately, it will need to legislated out of existence & criminalized.
But the question there is, will civilization last long enough for vegans to gain sufficient political power to do so?
Credit where credit is due, in Australia last year, Chris Delforce and The Farm Transparency Project did a similar investigation of slaughter houses there in 2012, without all the self promotion. It's also a properly registered non-profit, which means that they are accountable, & don't pay personal tax on their income. Under the name Aussie Farms, in 2014 they released the world's first footage of the carbon dioxide gas chambers, so it's a bit of a second hand idea possibly being exploitd for the sake of self-promotion. I tend to think that if an activist is drawing attention to themselves, rather than the cause, they're failing but more concerning are the financial aspects.
To the best of my knowledge, Joey keeps his finances unaccountable and non-transparent which suggests that he is managing them as personal income. I don't know where or if he pays taxes but in both the UK and Australia his income is likely to push him into the higher tax bracket.
I don't see the point of vegans donating to individuals, if 35 or 40% of that is going to go to the government.
Big ups to Chris and FTP. They continue to do the tough and inspiring work over and over, and for all the right reasons.
@@thecrankyvegan Strange. I'm guess that RUclips, not you, deleted the second post I left relating to the reports of the recent execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith in USA. I flagged them up because the use of Nitrogen rather than CO2 is considered to be the upmarket, "humane" solution & made a point about how all these campaigns are likely to do is make the industry shift up to using it or other more expensive inert gases instead. And then the fight will start all over again. I've commented a couple of times about it on other channels but they disappeared too. What the hell is going on with YT?
@@thecrankyveganso you think FTP have the right strategy in mind? They seem to try to cover a lot of bases, like filming, outreach (I've done some with them), and various different pressure campaigns (e.g. the campaign against fashion brands to drop crocodile skins), but they also encourage people to go vegan. Though even Chris has become unhappy with how little progress has been made over the recent years (after putting in so much work), so we either need more hands on deck or to try other strategies too.
@@r0bt93 I think they have done good stuff and have been thoughtful and retrospective on their work and how to move it forward. I think part of the challenge is the state of the movement. You can have the greatest campaigns and strategies and tactics, but if there isn't a movement supporting you or taking your tools and running with them, you're kind of stuck. And I think currently the movement predominantly looks towards online influencers and talking heads and street debaters as how we make change. Which puts groups like FTP in a bit of tough spot. But i hope they keep moving forward.
@@thecrankyvegan yeah agreed. Animals Australia are doing great work here too, they support FTP and use their footage to campaign for change. They use things like advertising to get people on board. It's still focused on consumer change though. But at least it gets the public aware and primed for action against these orgs (hopefully). Live export of sheep is something that they've helped push for an end to actually, and now our government has said they will phase it out. That's a win I'd say
Great words!
so the not so good stuff is thatyou dont belive supply and demand to the companys if in theori everyone went vegan they would still continue even do no proffit cuz the goverment will help them out.... I dont get it. I think you just made the point that there needs to be more vegans to shut down these companies. + if everyone went vegan the "small pieces" like edjucation and law stuff would probebly come in the picture but idk.
Hi Jake
I’m a vegan activist from Petaluma California. We would like to have you present at one of our meetings. We have a vegfest also later in the year (Sonoma County). I don’t do Facebook or Twitter. Can we correspond by email? The Vegabond
If it's true that Joey has a bigger following than you then that's a shame. You are the real deal. And if you have an ego I have yet to see it. I have learned so much from you.
Thank you.
It’s kinda funny how Joey left his old gangster life and now in another gang
Well said ❤
Nice work - thanks for taking the risks. 👊🏻💚
I'm not convinced that vegan outreach (spreading the vegan philosophy - not diet talk) is the main tactic where most resources and energy are spent in the movement. It certainly isn't true for the nonprofits (PETA etc.). Do you have any data to back up this claim?
On my channel I mainly focus on the grassroots movement. I would agree with you - the larger NGOs focus more on pressure campaigns and they get the wins they want (which, IMO, are pretty welfarist and usually don't interest me). But when we look at who the bigger grassroots groups and influencers are - AV, WTF, Save, and to a lesser extent DxE, Joey Carbstrong, Earthling Ed, everyone who wants to be Joey or Ed and films themselves talking to people on the street, the enormous amount of content creators who focus almost exclusively on plant based content... the grassroots is inundated with vegan outreach, and has been for decades.
My concern is that in all these cases, from PETA down to the latest Joey or Ed clone, we're seeing an increased trend towards reaping personal income from the vegan movement, & that is being established as the template for what "vegan activism" is. It's has become completely unaccountable & non-transparent cashtivism or actorvism, i.e. acting out a well establish script to excite & entertain other vegans who lack the courage to do it themselves. And, beyond the person wealth that the first few to do so will be able to reap, it's a highly inefficient & often even counter productive.
With the big groups, how much of what they do is just to bring in money to pay for their huge overheads & salaries buy giving their supporters minor "wins" they can feel good about.
With the social media entrepreneurs, how much of it is just having to keep in the news, keep their supporters entertained, & feeling like they are contributing to something worthy? How much of it is just drama making?
How much of it is just for the camera, rather than the cause?
The defence to that is the claim that they "have made people vegan", although we have no idea how many, no idea how many remain vegan, nor the quality of their commitment.
In general though, I disagree with that. They don't make people go vegan. The quality of the idea, the concept of veganism, the facts & arguments that have been developed by others over the decades, is what makes people ready to become vegan, become vegan.
It's just taking profit from the work of all of those previous generations of vegans who built the movement up into what it is today at their own person costs. "Reap the fruit" from all of the seeds they planted.
This is one area where I am more ciitical of Joey coming over to the UK, while being financed by some venture capitalist, the single most vegan saturated nation in the world, where there is already near universal recognition of what it means. It's the last place on earth that needs commercialise activism.
🌱🕊️🌱
Who says vegan outreach is the only tactic? Why do you bash it at every opportunity, claiming that vegan activists say things they don't actually say? And even if some have a big mouth and say those things, what's the problem as long as they are doing their work? You also acknowledge that we need different tactics, yet you always belittle one of them. It seems personal. I'd say changing people's minds (you don't need them to go vegan, you just need them to agree with it) also helps pressure campaigns. I think saying that vegan street outreach only works if people go vegan on the spot is disingenuous.
The spiracies….dead 😂
Every time those movies come up, I think of that meme of the guy from Everything's Sunny... in front of the board...
You just got pignorated
I dont know why I thought that was so funny.
Subscribing because you are talking about pignorant
💜💕💜
Good job !
For me i try to be vegetarian (i have stopped meat from 2 years ago), i think we should just allow people to eat eggs, its good for health (give vitamins and natural B12), cheap, and its the only animal product which can be made without animal suffering, if we upgrade the living of chicken, and without killing them when they are too old to make eggs...i work on creating a farm to produce such eggs, 100% cruelty free....
i think its the better solution for humans and animals...and it breaks all the anti vegan/vegetarian argument we always see in every debate : "without meat you don't have proteins and B12 needed to be in perfect health (which is a real fact)"
If we find a solution to stop this argument, there is no longer a single valid one to defend the exploitation of animals...so i think eggs are the solution...(and we need eggs to make cakes and many meals too)
Eggs Do cause hens to suffer from painful infections along the reproductive tract especially at the cloaca, osteoporosis that can cause painful sternums, apart from being denied hardly any space to even open a wing. How would you like to stand shoulder to shoulder to other humans 24/7 in an overcrowded wire mesh prison?
@@lauratanln its not a problem if we allow enough space for hens, living in natural wild fields with large space in nature...there are hens who live in cages or in tiny spaces, which i think its very bad and i condemn this !
but there are others solutions, we can eat eggs from hens living in good conditions, and without suffering ...we need to forbide bad living conditions for chickens, like shoulder to shoulder exactly as you said... and there will be no more suffering if chicken live in natural fields with big space to move, like a little forest and a bit of field with fosters...
so in this case, we could have eggs to eat, without any suffering for the hens..
its my goal, i try to run a bizness like this, to sell eggs 100% cruelty free..and even, when the chicken will be to old to produce eggs, i will never kill them, but i will let them live their old day free, in nature, without any obligation...
i think its possible to sell eggs like this, 100% cruelty free...its a win win for animal and for the humans...
@@grifyn882
You can run a farm you described, but the costs will be so high that nobody will be able to afford the eggs you sell. Land is not cheap and you need to protect your animals from other animals. And chickens do fall sick or develop health problems and conditions like people do. So it is just impossible when you want to profit from them.
1. We don't have the right to take anything from another being without consent.
2.Humans have manipulated birds' bodies to cause their reproductive systems to overproduce, which causes them pain and diseases that lead to great suffering and early death.
3. Eating the product of someone's ovulation is not natural for humans, nor is it healthy.
4. Please consider the wishes of the hens and not your selfish desires.
@@lauratanln i have started to study how to run such a farm, with the best living conditions for the animals and without any killing...obviously, except if some hens become ill and if there isn't any possible way to cure them...
there are diseases for humans and animal from the beginning of life on earth, and sadly some will die, we cant cure 100%diseases, its life on this planet...
for the land, fields and undergrowth, i have the chance to live in a country where in certains areas lands are very cheap (some parts in center of France like correze, perigord, auvergne, where few people live), and even better/cheaper for lands which are not good to produce food agriculture...a few thousand euros are enough to buy lands ti begin an exploitation...
hens have the advantage to be able to eat alone, in part...they search the ground on the fields and undergrowth and eat worms, insects, grass, seeds...if they are too numerous, i will have to supplement them with purchased (biological obviously) seeds...
My goal is not to make profit or big money, i don't care of that, but i would like to change the mentality of people and try to make them become vegetarian (or vegan)...i just need minimum money to live, and the state already pay me what i need to survivre, even without working...
i think they are plenty of vegetarians and maybe vegans people who are often from upper class, so who have the money to pay extra costs to eat eggs a price more high that what already exist in supermarkets...they would like to do it, but the problem is that there isn't any supply existing...(i have the proof i have discussed with them an they told me they would be ok to pay more to be able to eat cruelty free no killing eggs)
non vegetarian people pay their entrecote or meat like 8 $ (or 7 euro and even more) the piece of meat...so could pay the same for 2 eggs...(to have good nutriments, all the best proteins, natural B12, etc...) and for the taste too !
eggs are delicious and can be cooked in many different forms :)
I really can't understand how Joey has the scruples to openly state that he shutdowned the Pilgrim's gas chamber in Manchester. Pilgrim's has been announcing the closure of a third of its facilities for some time due to unfavorable market conditions and low profitability, and the closure of the Manchester facility was an integral part of their plans, nothing related to any of Joeys's initiative or action. taking credit for the closure of the Manchester facility is a flagrant lie to both, his fans, and the wider public, that casts a really sad shadow on veganism in general.
It hastened it happening, as a face saving move by Pilgrims. By how much? No one knows.
'a face saving move', what an unfortunate choice of words. what should Pilgrims be ashamed of? they didn't accidentally kill a couple of pigs. they are a registered business, completely legal, with a clearly defined goal, which is not even controversial and widely known to everyone. It has been a long time since Pilgrims publicly announced the closure of its facilities owing to financial issues. Joey, rather deceitfully if you ask me, just misused the closing date as his credit. It's like claiming the rain is caused by Joey's rainmaking dance -- after the rain fell.
I watched it… and then made a delicious BLT.
you mean Joey's massive attempt at flexing, which could be characterized more as his biography than a documentary? in this documentary, more space was devoted to Joey's virtue signaling than to the pig industry. in my opinion, this documentary didn't even justify the money that was invested in it.
Why do vegans always insist on tearing each other down? Joey has made many people go vegan and has created change with his actions and content.
maybe because Joey represents everything a vegan should not be? whatever influence Joey had on anyone was entirely accidental and for the wrong reasons. in addition to the fact that he did immense damage to veganism, it seems that he himself benefited the most from his 'activism', which makes his adherence to the vegan objectives very questionable.
P.S. I'm not a vegan, and I can't tell you firsthand why vegans insist on tearing each other down, at least not without speculating about it.
@@v.a.n.e.my guess: they want to be the most vegan vegan
It's his career I guess. I think that really clouds the actions of full time activists. This is his is source of income, boosting his image is securing his income, its a career move in a way. I also found his girlfriend to be a bit fake on the camera, she really didn't play an important role not sure why she was even there tbh.
@@ostamaza22-yt4sq yeah, kind of 'my way or the highway' mindset. why do australian vegans need to be radical in everything?
I see you're still addicted to your 3-minute lie.
It's an in joke. Stick to the Shorts if you're offended by it. They're even shorter.
You didn’t “watch the movie from start to finish”. What’s the point of watching your video from start to finish. Bye lol
I can’t properly reply to your comment because I didn’t read it from start to finish.
Like he said, once you've been vegan for nearly 3 decades, watching yet another reel of animal abuse has limited valued. So he skipped it and moved onto the salient parts.
Meat eater here, (I know bad for me), but my view as to the problem with 'exposing the meat industry ', is that practices towards more human faming aren't the goal, the goal seems to be to want to end the industry altogether, and that's why IMO it will never be successful, because people will always eat meat.....and thus my problem veganism, is it seems ther is little to no room for compromise....which is a shame because I would love to see animals treated better, (even tho I still see them as food,) I think the way we raise and slaughter them can be drastically improved in many cases, joey himself has said he rather see these animals continued to be treated badly, then to reach compromise, which to me if you truly love animals, wouldn't be a bad place to start.....but then again what do I know, I'm just a pignorant meat eater....gl!
Where did Joey say he rather see animals continue to be treated badly than to reach compromise? I would really like to know. As for wishing animals to be treated better, the expenses and costs would be so high that few people will be able to "afford". So it's just wishful thinking.
It would be awesome to see a video breaking down how pressure campaigning worked in other social justice movements @thecrankyvegan
This is what most vegans are missing: knowledge of the "conspiracy". The big social justice movements haven't been organic or grass roots.