I'm writing angry. The news of Joe Biden's purchase of a puppy from a breeder has been commented on by some within the animal rights movement. Here, here, and here for example. The mainstream media has also given this story some press.
Now to my rage. One such program in the M.S.M. world teased with a clip surrounding Biden's decision and the reaction, primarily from PETA, that followed. I made the only reasonable assumption: a stark discussion about the issue would follow. I was wrong. The story lasted thirty seconds and was essentially a mockery of our challenge, and the evidence that supports it. The message was not "Biden buys one, gets one killed": here's why this is true and why it's not ethical. But: "Why did he get a german shepard? Pugs are cuter."
The possibility for adding some public pseudo-merit (we of course win on the substance) to this discourse is intimately connected with the decisions made by the M.S.M. The mockery is clearly strategic, not substantive, but it does have a net negative effect on the movement to make our ethics consistent.
Biden made the wrong choice, as an ethical matter. This is objectively true if we really think suffering is a bad thing. However, if this challenge of ours is framed as "a joke," or with statements such as "It just is...," and "common sense tells us....," the impact of the message is deflected. This is a tactic; the language is used purposefully. It's at the same time a reflection of our prejudice and an attempt to fortify it. In our speciesist world, we are welcome consumers of these manufactured arguments. (This goes to prove my constant claim that the political message goes both ways: H.S.U.S. presents a challenge to speciesism, while childrens' books and McDonald's commercials, for example, present a counter message.)
From Animal Person:
Here's the "why" (or one of them). From Earthlings: Pets
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Now to my rage. One such program in the M.S.M. world teased with a clip surrounding Biden's decision and the reaction, primarily from PETA, that followed. I made the only reasonable assumption: a stark discussion about the issue would follow. I was wrong. The story lasted thirty seconds and was essentially a mockery of our challenge, and the evidence that supports it. The message was not "Biden buys one, gets one killed": here's why this is true and why it's not ethical. But: "Why did he get a german shepard? Pugs are cuter."
The possibility for adding some public pseudo-merit (we of course win on the substance) to this discourse is intimately connected with the decisions made by the M.S.M. The mockery is clearly strategic, not substantive, but it does have a net negative effect on the movement to make our ethics consistent.
Biden made the wrong choice, as an ethical matter. This is objectively true if we really think suffering is a bad thing. However, if this challenge of ours is framed as "a joke," or with statements such as "It just is...," and "common sense tells us....," the impact of the message is deflected. This is a tactic; the language is used purposefully. It's at the same time a reflection of our prejudice and an attempt to fortify it. In our speciesist world, we are welcome consumers of these manufactured arguments. (This goes to prove my constant claim that the political message goes both ways: H.S.U.S. presents a challenge to speciesism, while childrens' books and McDonald's commercials, for example, present a counter message.)
From Animal Person:
"Here's why this matters, at least to me. I'm not asking the guy to stop eating and wearing animals. Okay, that's not true; that's my nefarious goal. Look, everyone's watching Biden's every move and he knows that. His choice tells me that he can't see why saving a life and giving an animal a chance is more preferable than creating one to suit his needs.
And that scares me."That is but one legitimate point that ought to be debated.
Here's the "why" (or one of them). From Earthlings: Pets
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Leave a comment