Outreach fundamentals

The fundamental speaking principles:

1. Talk slow
2. Be calm and not hectic, don't raise your voice
3. Stand beside them with your chest not directly facing theirs

View the conversation from their perspective

Consider the scenario: picture yourself unable to swim, yet suddenly tossed into the deep end of a swimming pool. How does that experience make you feel? Terrifying, right? Now, envision subjecting others to a similar ordeal with your idea. What would you estimate your chances of success to be? Change tends to evoke discomfort, and significant changes can be downright frightening. If your idea necessitates a substantial shift in the current way of doing things, it's likely to face rejection. Instead, opt for a gradual approach. Break down your idea into smaller, more manageable steps. Keep it simple. Ensure that the person you're trying to persuade feels secure at each stage. Emphasize that embracing your proposal is in their best interest. Moreover, avoid condescension. Maintain a respectful tone throughout the conversation.

The common thread in outreach

The core approach of this outreach method involves engaging with non-vegan individuals by presenting premises they are likely to agree with. These premises are then systematically linked to the conclusion that adopting a vegan lifestyle aligns with their existing values.

In practice, the conversation unfolds in the following steps:

• Identifying Values: For instance, asking, "Would you intervene if you saw someone on the street kicking a dog or a cow in the chest?"

• Explaining the Connection Between Values and Actions: By discussing concepts like supply and demand, "Are you aware that your purchasing choices influence industry practices, much like casting a vote?"

• Addressing the Discrepancy Between Values and Actions: Highlighting inconsistencies, "It seems contradictory to oppose animal cruelty yet purchase animal products. How about aligning your actions with your values by living vegan?"

Human habits and societal norms, particularly the widespread acceptance of carnism from a young age, often lead individuals to justify their choices. However, this method can help individuals critically examine and question the validity of these justifications.

How to effectively address inconsistencies in values

There’s a pattern in conversations about our values about non-human animals that is very counterintuitive to what we usually see when engaging in moral disputes. It is the phenomenon of instead framing the conversation in a way that presupposes that the other person is against animal abuse, people to the opposite, going even so far as beginning the conversation with a projection of what they think or want the outcome of the conversation to be onto the other person they are talking to, you will see what I mean when I say this is very counterintuitive to what we usually see when engaging in moral disputes.

An example of this would be, "How do you justify animal murder?" What I mean by "projecting" is that we presuppose that the person we're talking to is IN FAVOR OF murdering animals, when, in reality, what is most often the case is that they are simply endorsing animal abuse due to social norms like tradition or habit that make them buy and consume animal body parts. What happens next is that the person on the other end answers the question, but is not in line with their actual values. Instead, they tend to respond with the first thing that comes to mind when they think about what MIGHT be a justification for animal abuse. Often, this initial response doesn't truly represent their underlying beliefs.

For example, when asked, "How do you justify animal murder?" the other person might reply with, "It's tradition; we've been doing it for thousands of years." Then, the person arguing for valuing non-human animals may respond by constructing a "straw man" argument, saying something like, "So you would be okay with humans being murdered for tradition?" Keep in mind that they only replied "tradition" because it was the first thing that came to their mind when asked what they thought MIGHT be a justification. Most people would initially answer with a "no" because most people are against murder, even if they were to move to a society where murder is a tradition. They would still object to it.

Now, the person arguing for valuing non-human animals may frame this in a way that appears to catch the other person in a contradiction. This can even escalate to the point where the conversation becomes confrontational, with statements like, "So will you admit that you were contradicting yourself?" in front of a group of people. Naturally, people want to avoid contradictions to protect their ego from humiliation, so the signal that comes to the other person's mind is often to avoid contradictions at all costs. As a result, after the next question, they might commit to something like, "So you're IN FAVOR OF killing a human if they're tasty?" and respond with "yes" to avoid further contradiction. It's important to note that this is a form of manipulation aimed at making people respond in ways that only psychopaths would.

Outreach should not focus on attempting to align others' values with the arguments they present. Instead, it should emphasize that carnism stands in opposition to their actual values. Rather than putting individuals on the spot with statements like, "You brought up excuse x; in another situation, you wouldn't accept x. Do you understand that you have made a logical error here?" a more effective approach would be to say, "You mentioned reason x, which may be influencing your belief that the value of x (being against suffering for example) doesn't apply to being x. Let's explore together whether that's truly the reason for your choice not to act in a way y."

Or another example: Don't say “You said tradition? So you're ok with abuse when it's tradition?”, instead say something along the lines of “Consider the concept of tradition from a broader perspective. Embracing this perspective would involve acknowledging X, and it's worth reflecting on whether this truly resonates with your core values. Perhaps there's an alternative interpretation that better aligns with your beliefs?” After each trait, you can steer them towards sentience or suffering by asking something like, “Do you know why someone doesn't want to be gassed to death?” If they are honest, they will respond with something like 'because they can suffer.' Then you can ask them, “Does this maybe better fit your value system than the difference x you mentioned? I feel it does. Are you with me on this?”

General outreach example

You initiate the conversation by asking if they have encountered similar videos before “Did you see something like this before?”. This approach is more effective than inquiring about their interest in information or your presence, as it reduces the chance of being perceived as a salesperson. If they have seen videos like this before or are generally aware of animal abuse, they are more likely to engage with you. After this ask them how they feel about this, if they start bringing up arguments or especially in small groups taking all over each other don’t address the arguments, ask the question again until they answer, if they still do not answer then almost all of the time you can stop the conversation, you have the control.

After their response you can start the conversation, you can then inquire about their thoughts on the existence of such places by saying “We're showing behind the scenes of industries that abuse animals, such as meat, dairy, egg and fish industries. All the footage is standard practice and includes humane/RSPCA-certified organic, etc. Do you know why these places exist in the first place?”

When they articulate their response, likely along the lines of "Because people consume meat/animal products," you can elaborate on their statement by introducing the concept of supply and demand. Whether they affirm, deny, or express uncertainty about understanding this concept, you can smoothly continue the conversation by stating, "Sure, you know supply and demand right? If you were to visit a store and purchase, let's say, 'x' (replace 'x' with strawberries, animal products, or a relevant example), and the seller records this transaction 'x,' do you think the seller would order more or less of 'x' next time?" Anticipating their response, which is likely to be "More," you can then reinforce the idea by saying, "Sure, so it's like a vote you give for it.”

Now you want to make the person express values against minimal animal abuse, saying like you just want to make sure “You’re against animal abuse right?”

They will probably say “Yes” or “In general yes, xy” because that’s their values, most people don’t want to be psychopathic animal abusers. After they respond, you can then delve deeper into their agreement. Instead of accepting this as the statement of their values, you can guide them to acknowledge a more fundamental level of opposition. For instance, you could ask them, 'If a cow were lying here, and someone was kicking her in the face, would you intervene and stop them?' This question essentially forces them to acknowledge that they are against the minimal level of animal abuse. This also eliminates mostly that they bring up other forms of animal exploitation like “Yes I'm against abuse in general but organic and free-range is not abuse, and my farmer next to me only slits the throats and rapes innocents but it's not bad as on the screen you show here...” and argue, this doesn’t capture what I said when I said I'm against animal abuse, but when you extend their values to what they actually mean this won’t come up or they will realise quickly that imprisoning, breeding raping and slitting someone's throat who’s innocent isn’t better than kicking someone is the face, it's much worse.

Moreover, adopting this approach significantly reduces the likelihood of them responding with "That's too unrealistic." This is because you are essentially aligning their position with yours, creating a context where agreement is desired. For instance, imagine asking someone, "You're against kicking children in the face, right?" Upon their agreement, you can then pose the scenario: "If a child were lying here, and someone was kicking it in the face, would you intervene and stop them?" In such a scenario, it becomes challenging for them to dismiss the hypothetical as unrealistic, as doing so would not only go against their initial agreement but also hinder their ability to effectively signal their values in opposition to the depicted situation.

Now, you have the opportunity to delve into additional facets of the animal industry and highlight their aversions by prompting individuals to empathise with the victims. For instance, envision being born in confinement, devoid of sunlight, surrounded by waste, and subjected to mistreatment for the sole purpose of facilitating pregnancy so that others can consume the bodily fluids intended for your offspring, who has been separated and killed.

"Now, ask them what they think they can do about this. They will likely respond with something along the lines of creating awareness. You can agree and say, 'Yes, of course. You should also defend your own values and explain to other people why you are against voting for animal abuse.' They may directly respond with the point you want to make, such as not voting for products that entail the abuse they are against, even at the minimum.

You say, 'Yes, exactly. You just don’t buy these products anymore or support practices where animals are abused, imprisoned, mutilated, etc. When you go vegan, you don’t change anything about your values' (pointing to your chest). 'You just align your actions' (pointing to the screen) 'with your own values. Are you with me on this?'

Alternatively, you can phrase it as, 'When you go vegan, you don’t change anything about your values' (pointing to your chest). 'You just align your actions with those set of values that you hold. So, you're not changing anything about who you are; you're just aligning your actions with those sets of values. If you buy meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal products, you're saying that this is okay. Are you with me on this?'"

"If they respond with 'Yes,' you can ask them, 'Would you consider not voting for the objectification and abuse of animals anymore at some point?' After they say 'yes,' this is just to help them imagine doing it, because if they've said, 'I can imagine going vegan' once, the step to 'I'm going to go vegan' is much easier for them. Encouraging individuals to make a small commitment can significantly enhance their willingness to make a substantial commitment at a later stage. The end goal is to have them say they will go vegan. After you get the 'yes,' ask them, 'So what will you do now and from today on?'"

The conversation will usually evolve into two sections. Either they will say they are going vegan, or they will express something along the lines of reductionism, like “I will eat less x.” Now, you can explain to them (point to the screen), “This is also a form of discrimination. When we examine discrimination and its origins, we often observe a common pattern: people treat others differently because they look or act differently. If we were to teach a child from a young age, ‘Just because a cow looks different from a dog, there's no reason to kick it in the face. Just because some animals, which we are culturally manipulated to eat, look or act differently, there's no reason to put them into a gas chamber, dismember them, and consume their body fluids when we don't have to. How is this child going to grow up to be racist or antisemitic if it never learns this discrimination, right? This is the root. Do you see what I'm saying?”

If they respond with yes, conclude by saying, “And now, imagine we are here doing activism against discrimination, and someone approaches us, saying, ‘I spit on x people every day.’ And YOU explain to him why it's wrong and goes against his values. If he responds, ‘I knew this, but I never actually thought about it. My whole family used to do it, etc.’ Then, you ask him, ‘What are you going to do about this?’ and he says he's only going to spit on black people and not anymore on Asians, or he says he will do it only once a week or once a month? You would say, ‘If you think this is wrong in principle (point to the screens), you should stop completely’ right?’"

They will most likely understand, and you can finish by saying, “Do you know what the best moment to go vegan is?” They say “Yes, now.” and you say, “Yesterday, right? So you're going to go vegan now?”

If the person still hesitates to say that they are now vegan, even though they should be according to their own values, you can be transparent and say something like: "The most respectful thing I can do right now is to tell you the truth. I'm doing this because I want you to make the best choices. Unfortunately, the harsh truth is that as long as you're not vegan yet, you are responsible for these terrible images (shown on the screen or refer to documentaries like Dominion)." It is important to always let the person feel to have the free choice to decide for veganism.

Additional motivation can also be provided with phrases like: "So much terrible stuff is happening in the world. There are horrific wars, women are probably being abused somewhere, and children are being raped in some dark corners at this very moment. Unfortunately, we have no control over all these things. However, we do have control over the atrocities committed against animals. Many of us even vote three times a day to allow this massacre to continue. This means that by living vegan, you're not doing something extraordinary. You're simply stopping your complicity in this animal massacre. It's the least you can do, and compared to the other horrible things mentioned earlier, understanding what one can and should do is the easiest in the case of veganism."