A recent Reddit post by u/veganhimbo looks into non-vegans commenting on veganism, highlighting the contrasting reactions to similar arguments depending on the speaker’s dietary label. The post draws attention to a streamer named Vaush, who, despite his love for meat, often finds a connection among his audience when discussing the ethical dilemmas of animal agriculture. As u/veganhimbo astutely observes, when Vaush, or anyone adopting a “not-vegan” stance, acknowledges the ethical validity of vegan arguments, they often receive a more receptive response than actual vegans presenting the same viewpoints.
The post says, “I first noticed this with a streamer called Vaush. Whenever the topic of veganism comes up he will usually say something along the lines of ‘Listen I eat meat, I like it too much to stop. But the vegans are right in their ethics, and there’s nothing special in animal products you can’t get from plants.’ And will often go on to talk about how terrible animal agriculture is.
But the interesting thing is, when he does this, the comments and livestream chat and whatnot are far more receptive to it than if a vegan were to say the exact same thing. I’ve experimented with this in my own life. If I preface my vegan arguments with ‘I’m not vegan but’ people are way more likely to be receptive and really hear me out and ultimately agree with me. But if I start with ‘I’m vegan and’ and say THE EXACT SAME THING, they get pissed and close-minded and start making all the familiar excuses.
‘I’m not vegan but I think killing animals for food is wrong’ tons of people agree.
‘I’m vegan because I think killing animals for food is wrong’ tons of people get p***ed at you.
Funny how that works huh?”
This paradox underscores a fascinating aspect of human behavior: the acceptance of cognitive dissonance. As u/Mission_Morning_131 pointed out, when a non-vegan admits to the ethical dilemmas of consuming animal products while continuing to do so, it somehow becomes palatable to many. It’s as though the act of acknowledging ethical concerns without action paradoxically normalizes the behavior.
But why does this paradox exist? One plausible explanation lies in the discomfort triggered by a consistent vegan stance. When someone identifies as vegan and advocates for the end of animal exploitation, it confronts others with their own choices, often leading to defensiveness. However, when the same argument comes from someone who partakes in the very behavior they critique, it somehow feels less threatening, allowing listeners to engage more openly with the message.
This phenomenon underscores the complexity of advocacy and the importance of strategic communication in effecting change. While it may seem counterintuitive, the “not-vegan” advantage reveals the power of framing and the need for nuanced approaches in promoting ethical lifestyles.
Easy Ways to Help the Planet:
Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox! Sign up for daily news from OneGreenPlanet.
Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.
Comments: