DxE-Good or bad for veganism/or animals?

[Forest Nymph]

Heh. I didn''t find Gary's arguments "psychotic" in the least. I'm at the 1 hr 6 minute mark as I write this, and the 54/55m mark up to where I am now is where I think some of his best arguments are. Thanks for sharing

He is a malignant Narcissist who makes psychotic arguments. I mean this is common knowledge to many vegans, some of whom used to support him. Including Tobias Leinhart who was a Francione fan until he realized Gary Francione hates EVERYONE from PETA to Mercy for Animals, activist groups with completely different strategies. He insults any attempts to help any animals in any way, whether its the California fur ban or Save the Whales. He is completely out of his mind. He essentially sits on his *** and really meanly insults other vegans because they can't wave a magic wand and make everyone vegan overnight.

He's been documented extensively on Facebook for calling animal rights activists Nazis and he claims to have started Feminist Animal Rights before actual feminists.... which is one of his most glaring traits of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Oh, you know, besides criticizing anyone who helps animals because they can't simultaneously help all animals.

His Facebook page is hyper-moderated, he constantly deletes polite comments for mild disagreement and bans people if they suggest if we can make animal lives easier we should.

Gary Francione is notorious for being absolutely ******* nuts. The only people who don't understand this are usually people who read one book of his but never encountered him online.

I dare you to go comment on his Facebook page saying some of the things you do here. He'd ban you in a heartbeat for defending veganism as a diet.

Gary doesn't like PETA,DXE, Mercy for Animals, Sea Shepherd or people like you. If you say veganism is only a diet or for health you'll be immediately called bad person.

Franci-bots are animal rights only vegans, no fur, no leather, no honey, no animal testing. ...also no WFPB or Esselyn or Dr. whomever, or vanity raw vegans....he also hates Peter Singer, and any attempts to improve animal conditions until the world goes vegan. He likes nothing but the sound of his own voice, his sense of arrogant superiority over others, and people who agree with him 100%.

Arguing that nothing but complete world veganism is adequate is insane. He's not all there.

 

[Nekodaiden]

I dare you to go comment on his Facebook page saying some of the things you do here. He'd ban you in a heartbeat for defending veganism as a diet.

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Although listening to him talk in the video you linked I noticed he did add an extra adjective to his position, other than just "vegan". He describes himself as an "abolitionist vegan", a term that describes more than diet. I'm fine with extra adjectives that serve to further refine a philosophical position, whether it is the "best" one or not.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Although listening to him talk in the video you linked I noticed he did add an extra adjective to his position, other than just "vegan". He describes himself as an "abolitionist vegan", a term that describes more than diet. I'm fine with extra adjectives that serve to further refine a philosophical position, whether it is the "best" one or not.

He would. You are included in the many groups of people he hates. I ammended my posts in case you really don't comprehend the depths of his self absorbed madness.

Gary Francione has never helped any animals, he's never changed any laws. He defends the meat industry saying they're just giving people what they ask for so the people are to blame.

I think some people don't read him very closely or investigate him, but I almost immediately picked up on what a complete and total psycho he is.

Because if we did exactly what Gary Francione said, there would be less vegans not more because his personal purity is so extreme, exclusive and elitist. He pushes people away who try to work with him if they don't obey him. People literally call him master.

He won't accept anything except what he considers perfection, which is why he's psychotic. What he suggests is literally impossible. There is no vegan world without compromise or different approaches.

 

[Andy_T]

There is that, and there is this:

Yes, I also heard that segment and interview between Wayne Hsiung and Prof. Gary Francione some time ago.
Here is a full version of both discussions:

Round 1:

Round 2:

I would not go so far as to call them anti-vegan, but Wayne surely does not come across as fully consistent in his approach to me.

 

[nobody]

He would. You are included in the many groups of people he hates.

To Francione, veganism is at least the vegan diet. Someone who follows the diet is a vegan to Francione, but "minimally so".

Veganism” means at the very least not eating any flesh, dairy, or other animal products. In this sense, “vegan” means “vegan diet.” Donald Watson, who originally coined the term “vegan” used the word in this way when he made statements such as: “Wherever Man lives, he can have a vegan diet.”

In sum, people may be vegans for different reasons. In my view, ethical or abolitionist veganism is the only approach that results in consistent behavior. We should, however, be clear that no form of veganism is consistent with eating any animal products. That is, following a “vegan diet” is the minimal meaning of “vegan.” In my view, a “vegan” is someone who does not eat, use, or wear any animal products. But it is also accurate to say that a person who eats no animal products follows a “vegan diet.” The absence of animal products is explicitly being limited to diet. As a said above, I do not regard “flexible” vegans as vegans and, by definition, they do not even follow a vegan diet.

Some Thoughts on the Meaning of “Vegan” – Animal Rights The Abolitionist Approach

I think some people don't read him very closely or investigate him, but I almost immediately picked up on what a complete and total psycho he is.

I hardly think you're someone who reads him closely or has investigated him thoroughly. For one thing, I have watched you complain about him in many, many posts over the past two years and this is only the second post you have ever written where you even spelled his name correctly.

At least you have finally stopped saying he is against people rescuing animals from shelters, which is good since the guy's house is packed full of rescued dogs.

 

[Forest Nymph]

To Francione, veganism is at least the vegan diet. Someone who follows the diet is a vegan to Francione, but "minimally so".

Some Thoughts on the Meaning of “Vegan” – Animal Rights The Abolitionist Approach

I hardly think you're someone who reads him closely or has investigated him thoroughly. For one thing, I have watched you complain about him in many, many posts over the past two years and this is only the second post you have ever written where you even spelled his name correctly.

At least you have finally stopped saying he is against people rescuing animals from shelters, which is good since the guy's house is packed full of rescued dogs.

He's a monster. Go to Philosophical Vegan forum,and you'll find ten people in a thread intelligently discussing how insane and cruel and useless he is. I don't know what is up with people here, I don't know if it's willful ignorance or what.

The dog thing is actually one of THE WORST things about him, ironically. He denies care, comfort, improvements or single issue campaigns to meat and fur animals, but hypocritically and inconsistently has six dogs. Someone who has made a case for him being a shill for the agriculture industry points to just that behavior as a symptom that he's a speciesist and not a real vegan. I find these theories paranoid but I see where they come from. Mainstream meat eaters rescue dogs and ignore pigs or make fun of animal people, not normal vegans.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Yes, I also heard that segment and interview between Wayne Hsiung and Prof. Gary Francione some time ago.
Here is a full version of both discussions:

Round 1:

Round 2:

I would not go so far as to call them anti-vegan, but Wayne surely does not come across as fully consistent in his approach to me.

This is the statement on veganism from those conversations, taken out for clarity.

 

[Forest Nymph]

In the wider vegan and animal rights community, there's four common opinions of Gary Francione:

1) He's a malignant narcissist

2) He's insane

3) He's doing it on purpose because he's actually being paid by the animal agriculture industry (I find this paranoid but maybe I don't have enough evidence)

4) He's a minor god

There's an unusual and disproportionate number of people who seem to be number 4 here, meaning none of you would be capable of having a conversation about ANY animal rights organization, since Gary hates all of them, not just DXE. He hates Peter Singer, PETA, Mercy for Animals, Sea Shepherd, and more (including anyone interested in health or WFPB) ...SO not one of you would be capable of having a rational discussion about DXE. Very peculiar.

 

[Andy_T]

I don’t think Prof. Francione „hates“ all these organizations, but he definitely raises some very good points about inconsistencies at many of them.

Again, very few things on earth are strictly black and white, and while he makes a lot of good points, he also does have a few blind spots and things he does not see clearly in my opinion.

But that certainly does not mean that people who agree with him on some points are no longer capable of having a rational discussion about other organizations.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I don’t think Prof. Francione „hates“ all these organizations, but he definitely raises some very good points about inconsistencies at many of them.

Again, very few things on earth are strictly black and white, and while he makes a lot of good points, he also does have a few blind spots and things he does not see clearly in my opinion.

But that certainly does not mean that people who agree with him on some points are no longer capable of having a rational discussion about other organizations.

But he does hate them. He calls them welfarists and accuses them of doing things for money, he runs smear articles and interviews on them, His points are not "good" they are NUTS.

Good points are things like "Some PETA ads are sexist" or "I don't always agree with DXE's methods" or "I disagree because..."

No. Gary Francione has made a career on why he's a perfect vegan and you are a loser.

It is pretty black and white. It's one thing to have balanced opinions about other vegan strategies, or to dislike one particular group - personally disliking one particular group is completely fair - but LYING (which Francione lies his *** off, saying things like DXE is "anti-vegan" or that PETA is not in the abolition business).

Like Leinhart says:

"Let’s take an organisation like PETA as an example. You can think of PETA what you want (you may consider them sexist, sensationalist etc), but their aim is clearly abolitionist, in the sense that most people and most animal advocates understand the term. PETA wants to abolish all use of animals by humans. Look at PETA’s baseline: animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment. Unlike most people though, Francione calls PETA a “new welfare” organization – despite the fact that their clear stated goal has always been to abolish the use of animals. Francione’s justification for this twisting of language is that some of PETA’s individual campaigns are reformist: they would improve the lives of animals but in themselves are not about the abolition of animals abuse. How valuable reformist campaigns are is not the point here. What is the point is that the objective still is abolitionist. Accusing PETA the way Francione does is much like accusing Amnesty International of being a pro-political imprisonment organization because – although their goal is to have political prisoners freed – they also campaign to improve the treatment of political prisoners. "

Or Roland Vincent:

"Francione dismisses all efforts that are not aimed at immediate veganism and stopping all animal use and abuse as consorting with the enemy. He is critical of single issue campaigns (such as opposing bullfighting, sealing, whaling, trophy hunting, etc) as somehow lending support to animal exploitation that is not part of a particular campaign.
With the exception of rescuing dogs and cats, that is! Somehow, rescuing dogs and cats is not a single issue, and is approved by Francione. No doubt because dog and cat rescue is the engine of fund raising in the animal movement."

Or Unnatural Vegan:

Or Mod Vegan and friends on Philosophical Vegan forum:

We're all fake vegans. Except Francione. According to Francione. - Philosophical Vegan Forum

Or Gary Francione incriminating himself:

"Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights […] Frankly, the Nazis should have subcontracted the Holocaust to “animal people.” They would have gotten a built-in cheering section in the bargain that would have silenced any criticism–and yammered on about peace and love and nonviolence in the process.. "


Fortunately I am familiar enough with how activism works, human nature, and how to spot someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, so I didn't need anyone to spoonfeed me this information. I looked for it after the fact. I noted that he had some good points about insisting people go vegan instead of flexitarian or reducing, but immediately picked up on his delusional detachment from how the real world works and his flagrant self-congratulations while trying to make every other vegan on Earth look bad.

Again, it's one thing to disagree or dislike one organization. But if you say every philosopher or activist is wrong besides you, it's pretty likely you're a narcissist or insane.

 

[Forest Nymph]

So back to the real subject at hand: here's DXE founder Wayne's personal vegan story:

You can find the #veganstory of other DXE organizers on YouTube if that's your problem.

And for the third time, here's DXE's official statement on veganism, since no one wants to acknowledge it. It's almost like....its a convenient way to excuse yourselves from not doing real animal rights activism to pretend that DXE "isn't really vegan."

 

[nobody]

He hates Peter Singer, PETA, Mercy for Animals, Sea Shepherd, and more (including anyone interested in health or WFPB) ...

Is there any evidence that he hates, or even dislikes, or is even irritated by people who follow a vegan diet for health reasons, or WFPB types? I have never seen him say anything to that effect.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Is there any evidence that he hates, or even dislikes, or is even irritated by people who follow a vegan diet for health reasons, or WFPB types? I have never seen him say anything to that effect.

Ok avoid for lack of Empirical evidence. My exposure of his ego is scary.

No matter.

I'm gonna be a DXE leader. We aren't allowed to argue, only tolerate.

During my DXE phone call, I learned I'm here to plan, not accept you.

I am not allowed to argue anymore. In exchange for the argument of being pro-animal.

This is so good to hear from you for my mental health.

I accept the offer, being a girl.

Never again.

No one suffers due to me.

End.

 

[nobody]

Or Roland Vincent:

"Francione dismisses all efforts that are not aimed at immediate veganism and stopping all animal use and abuse as consorting with the enemy. He is critical of single issue campaigns (such as opposing bullfighting, sealing, whaling, trophy hunting, etc) as somehow lending support to animal exploitation that is not part of a particular campaign.
With the exception of rescuing dogs and cats, that is! Somehow, rescuing dogs and cats is not a single issue, and is approved by Francione. No doubt because dog and cat rescue is the engine of fund raising in the animal movement."

What on earth is Roland Vincent saying with the part I bolded here. Francione does not accept donations and pays for his two websites

Animal Rights The Abolitionist Approach – …and Abolition Means Veganism!

&

Being fair means going vegan - How Do I Go Vegan

Being fair means going vegan. Vegans don't use nonhuman animals for food, clothing or other purposes. This site will help you get started.

www.howdoigovegan.com

out of his own pocket with his law professor money. There is no donation button on either of those websites.

 

[Forest Nymph]

What on earth is Roland Vincent saying with the part I bolded here. Francione does not accept donations and pays for his two websites

Animal Rights The Abolitionist Approach – …and Abolition Means Veganism!

&

Being fair means going vegan - How Do I Go Vegan

Being fair means going vegan. Vegans don't use nonhuman animals for food, clothing or other purposes. This site will help you get started.

www.howdoigovegan.com

out of his own pocket with his law professor money. There is no donation button on either of those websites.

You're a Franci-bot, I get it. You ignore all other evidence to focus in on one statement you're likely misinterpreting. Im not going to argue with you about this, there is so much overwhelming damming information against Gary Francione that if you ignore it to attack DXE theres not going to be any reasoning with you. I'm pretty sure Vincent is saying theres already a ton of support for cats and dogs among the general public, so it's interesting that a supposed vegan animal rights advocate would focus energy there and not on other harmed animals.

Im not gonna fight with you people. This thread is a tiny echo chamber although there's a whole Internet world of vegans who know exactly what I mean.

Like the people at Rational Wiki, for instance.

Gary Francione

Gary L. Francione (1954–) is an American philosopher, professor of law at Rutgers University, and a controversial figure in animal rights. He has authored numerous books, one of the most famous of which is Rain Without Thunder (1996),[note 1] and maintains a website where he details his theory...

rationalwiki.org

 

[nobody]

I'm pretty sure Vincent is saying theres already a ton of support for cats and dogs among the general public, so it's interesting that a supposed vegan animal rights advocate would focus energy there and not on other harmed animals.

It IS interesting and I don't know why Francione doesn't consider dog and cat rescue a single issue campaign, but does that answer my question about what this one sentence means?

"No doubt because dog and cat rescue is the engine of fund raising in the animal movement."

Is he saying that Francione is trying to help the other animal rights organizations that he criticizes? Like Francione doesn't want the other organizations funds to dry up so that they stay in business so he can continue criticizing them, and that's why he approves of dog and cat rescue?

Since Rational Wiki's opinion on things is so significant to you that you would post a link, here:

PETA

PETA (People Executing Tacitly Animals, People Eating Tasty Animals People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is an American animal rights organization and vegan cult that opposes hunting, fishing, animal testing, pets, seeing eye dogs (!!!), and zoos while promoting a vegan diet. Behaving...

rationalwiki.org

 

[Andy_T]

I am pretty confident that Prof. Francione does not receive any kickbacks from „Big Shelter“...

While I also do not agree with everything he says, I find that in most cases the attacks against him (including those from the „Rationalwiki“ page that was shared accusing him of perfectionism seem to be, well, the attacks of people defending thoroughly imperfect things. Yes, PETA claims to strive for the abolition of animal use, while many of their policies clearly do not substantiate those words. Calling that out makes a lot of sense to me, and the description „New Welfarists“ is not a „snarl-word“ but IMO a more or less precise description of an activist claiming to be for abolition and then engaging in one welfarist campaign after the other.

His basic tenet, that welfarist campaigns, e.g. calling for KFC to slaughter chickens „more humanely“, cause more good than bad, as they do not really improve the lot of chickens, but only give consumers of chickens the feeling that consuming chickens is now „ok“, makes a lot of sense to me.

And, indeed, if the magazine of the Vegan Society“ prints vegetarian advertisements, that deserves to be called out. Being „The Vegan Society“ means they should know better, not that their policies must not be criticised. And if they - instead of apologizing and changing their behaviour - insist that they are right, well, then I am disappointed, too.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I am pretty confident that Prof. Francione does not receive any kickbacks from „Big Shelter“...

While I also do not agree with everything he says, I find that in most cases the attacks against him (including those from the „Rationalwiki“ page that was shared accusing him of perfectionism seem to be, well, the attacks of people defending thoroughly imperfect things. Yes, PETA claims to strive for the abolition of animal use, while many of their policies clearly do not substantiate those words. Calling that out makes a lot of sense to me, and the description „New Welfarists“ is not a „snarl-word“ but IMO a more or less precise description of an activist claiming to be for abolition and then engaging in one welfarist campaign after the other.

His basic tenet, that welfarist campaigns, e.g. calling for KFC to slaughter chickens „more humanely“, cause more good than bad, as they do not really improve the lot of chickens, but only give consumers of chickens the feeling that consuming chickens is now „ok“, makes a lot of sense to me.

And, indeed, if the magazine of the Vegan Society“ prints vegetarian advertisements, that deserves to be called out. Being „The Vegan Society“ means they should know better, not that their policies must not be criticised. And if they - instead of apologizing and changing their behaviour - insist that they are right, well, then I am disappointed, too.

Im going to respectfully disagree with you since your posts have been respectful.

After an absolutely HORRIFYING grad school semester with crazy people who call out their own allies over what can only be called "accidental racialism" at best, and completely innocent at worst, I think calling out and criticizing any helpful allies in a social justice movement is idiotic, fuels the real enemy, and basically makes the caller outers look like complete creeps who are out of touch with reality.

I wonder if I had to be around these deplorable, sheltered race-baiters to fully comprehend how this behavior also hurts veganism - that the universe was giving me helpful tips in practical activism.

I've posted repeatedly that DXE is actually vegan in the organizational ranks, they just don't exclude people for being vegetarian or waste energy harping on people about it when there's animals to be rescued.

Same with PETA, they actually are abolitionists with their Go Vegan message but are intelligent and practical enough to see the value of social change and saving groups of animals through single issue campaigns.

The only thing GF has said that is rational and proven in research (rather than inside his own mind) is that it really is more effective to ask people to be vegan rather than flexitarian or reducetarian.

Other than that, he's actually HARMFUL to animals. That's why I'm so frustrated with this conversation. He attacks allies harder than the "enemy," blames the public instead of factory farms, and generally makes the animal rights movement less effective with his delusional all or nothing approach.

Even Donald Watson and the Vegan Society say as far as POSSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE, not "perfect or nothing."

I'm more in agreement with Peter Singer and every other animal rights organization actually doing things in the real world.

Gary Francione is the WORST kind of irrational SJW academic. He's the animal rights version of the "white fragility" people.

 

[Forest Nymph]

By the way, in case some of you didn't realize this, there's a huge difference between what you personally believe and what actually works in the real world.

If something does not work in the real world, yet is consistently preached as the standard, the people belonging to that "standard" gets smaller and smaller not bigger. It becomes reduced to a sycophantic echo chamber. "Gary Francione and His Bots Vs the World" means that GF doesn't influence the world in any meaningful way. He preaches to the choir, mostly to people who seek greater individual personal purity and does no real activism. In fact it's a very convenient excuse to avoid real world animal rescue if it's not "good enough for Gary."

There are more vegans and vegetarians in the real world, and less animal testing and milk consumption because of PETA not because of Gary Francione. At the end of the day that's all that matters. A tiny group of people can huff and puff and feel superior to everyone else ... meanwhile, real life.

There has been completely willful avoidance of real talk about DXE in this thread. For example during my conference talk it was explicitly stated that new chapters aren't allowed to do things like cage-free egg campaigns. DXE explicitly stated that they're vegan and that we don't hold protests encouraging things like local milk. I was encouraged to talk to small farms and target small business to raise awareness of speciesism.

This is hardly the delusional harmful image painted by Franci-bots of DXE being anti-vegan or welfarists, just because they emphasize action and won't waste time judging individual vegetarians who help rescue animals.

Anyone who has ever done anything in the real world understands this is how life works. For example, the holier than thou individuals in my grad program seeing invisible racists in the classroom instead of focusing on real systemic racism outside the classroom door. They've changed no one outside of our program, and will only create more white nationalist sentiment in the real world. People who behave this way turn allies away and strengthen enemies. In their quest for perfection they diminish potential allies for their cause. In fact behaving this way is a method of avoiding having to deal with the complexity of reality which is why a disproportionate number of these people hide in the ivory tower of academia.

Only a completely irrational person would defend Gary Francione over literally every other animal rights philosopher or organization. There's strength in numbers and the last voice we need is some narcissist tearing everyone else down in their sincere efforts to save animals.

 

[nobody]

Maybe Roland Vincent is saying Francione wouldn't be able to get away with including dog and cat rescue in his boycott of single issue campaigns, because it is the main source of fundraising for the orgainzations, so he makes an exception for it (which is about more than just dogs and cats of course, there are lots of birds, lizards, rabbits, guinea pigs, and sometimes even farm animals seized in cruelty cases at shelters). It's a possibility that that is Francione's reason. I don't know.

As far as the OP title question, I'm not sure. Have people gone vegan as a result of the demonstrations they do? I would need to see evidence they have, and if they have, then I guess it's good for animals at least.

I went dietary vegan after listening to a Francione lecture on Youtube and the part of it that triggered me to go vegan was when he was talking about a guy in the 70s standing on a corner protesting the use of dogs in laboratory tests while wearing a leather jacket and eating hamburgers, while holding the protest sign. And he was talking about how inconsistent that is and about how "veganism is the most important form of animal rights activism".

And that idea of veganism being the most important form of animal rights activism made me take it seriously. It became something that actually counted for something to me. At the time I had been a lacto-ovo vegetarian for the prior 6 months and flexitarian for about 5 years, with long periods of dietary veganism broken up by exceptions like eating holiday meals with family that included meat, or buying my own animal products on occasion.

So I know that Francione giving that lecture made at least one person go dietary vegan. Are there any testimonies like "yeah, I was in this restaurant eating and DxE came in and did their demonstration and I was like 'well, I'm going to go vegan then'"? If there are then that's in DXE's favor.

But also worth considering, what about the other people at the restaurant who do not suddenly switch? Could the experience of witnessing the demonstration put them off considering switching to a vegan diet in the future, which they may have otherwise considered a "normal" lifestyle choice had they not encountered those "radical" DxE members at the restaurant? I don't know.

And I know that DxE does more than those demonstrations at restaurants but I'm just using them as an example because I have seen some on YouTube.