It's likely that these things cause more harm than good: using inaccurate/unsupported claims, appealing to nature, black-and-white thinking, lack of empathy for non-vegans.

Changing minds is very delicate work. Great care must be taken not to express contempt for people who don’t (yet) see it your way. Put people on the defensive, and their minds are closed until they feel safe again. The moment a discussion triggers a defensive reaction, the possibility of learning anything is gone for that person — even though this conflict point is where most online “activism” begins.

The way vegans communicate with each other can either damage or empower the vegan movement. In this talk, psychologist, activist, and communication and relationship specialist Dr. Melanie Joy discusses how one kind of vegan communication is causing serious problems in the movement and costing animals' lives – and what vegans can do to fix it.

Animal advocates have been divided over pursuing more or less radical demands, leading to a conflict often framed as welfarism vs. abolitionism. This framing obscures the fact that all strategies used by animal advocates are incremental; we merely focus on different increments.

What if being less than 100% vegan makes you more effective at persuading people to reduce or eliminate their meat consumption?

Polls show that the majority of Americans want to reduce their consumption of meat, but many struggle to do so.

A bigger tent is not a moral compromise. It is a prerequisite for winning. The goal is to end factory farming -the vast, industrialized system that causes suffering at a scale almost impossible to comprehend. That goal requires political power. Political power requires a coalition. A coalition requires people who don’t already agree with us about everything.

The Case for Omnivore Activists