tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post5034335096060394827..comments2024-02-03T06:58:02.859-04:00Comments on My Face Is On Fire: Misrepresenting the Abolitionist Approach, Part II: On Hugs and Merit BadgesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-13318027967533534162012-10-08T00:15:31.081-03:002012-10-08T00:15:31.081-03:00Dear Spencer,
I don't have hostility toward y...Dear Spencer,<br /><br />I don't have hostility toward you.<br /><br />I just think you are dishonest. <br /><br />It's a cognitive thing; it's not emotional.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />David Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04014812016885580228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-1438037675355191222012-10-07T22:32:52.190-03:002012-10-07T22:32:52.190-03:00Dear David,
I’m not sure why or how my response g...Dear David,<br /><br />I’m not sure why or how my response generated such hostility from you (for I have none towards you), to the point where you would launch an unwarranted personal attack on my character. It would be easy to take your remarks personally, but I prefer to see them as the very problems that Melanie Joy was trying to address: the lack of compassion and empathy in our communications. Consider Joy’s words:<br /><br />“Anger is a normal, appropriate response to injustice, but when we fail to examine and process our anger, it can grow and become chronic. And when we communicate from a place of anger, we inevitably project hostility. Our words – spoken or written – are pregnant with vitriol, righteously indignant.”<br /><br />I hope you would re-consider what you said to me in light of the above, particularly by reflecting and meditating on the process of your anger. <br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Spencer LoSpencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-3831363096942147642012-10-07T22:06:44.942-03:002012-10-07T22:06:44.942-03:00Sprncer--You state, "So to directly answer yo...Sprncer--You state, "So to directly answer your question, from the pov of a non-participant, I found Professor Francione’s debates/discussion interesting and informative--so in that sense I would characterize them as “good.” Does this acknowledgment mean that Melanie Joy was “attacking a straw man?” Not at all, because it does nothing to call into question her observations about “debate” attitude"<br /><br />Joy's essay was nothing more than a transparent attack on Francione for his inviting McWilliams to debate him after McWilliams published an essay that was scurrilous. So Joy presented a defamatory attack on Francione, claiming that his debates are not the Joy-permitted discussions. But there are many Francione debates out there and they are all "good" debates. So Joy's attack on Francione is quite clearly bollox. But you won't admit that. You are just being disingenuous at best and, frankly, I think you are dishonest. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04014812016885580228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-49536194311527077542012-10-07T20:29:41.739-03:002012-10-07T20:29:41.739-03:00Hi David,
Thanks for commenting. The difference b...Hi David,<br /><br />Thanks for commenting. The difference between a “good debate” and a “bad debate”--or Joy’s distinction between “debate” and “dialogue”--is not always obvious from the non-participant’s pov. Rather, we need to distinguish between the process or mentality of “debate” from the participant’s pov and the process or mentality of “debate” from the non-participant’s pov--we’re all familiar with both. <br /><br />From the pov of participants, which was Joy’s focus, the distinction between “debate” and “dialogue” is one of attitude: Is my goal or motivation to “destroy” or “annihilate” my opponent’s arguments, while trying to “protect” my own? Or is my goal or motivation to carefully consider, with a conversation partner, the various arguments that can be put forth in favor of competing positions, where there is no personal attachment to any particular argument solely (or largely) because it is *mine* or because I have a personal investment in it? How many us are *truly* capable of regularly engaging in rigorous “dialogue,” especially on passionate issues? If our current political climate is any indication, I’d say “very few.” Again, I’m no exception, but I believe I have enough “debate” experience--specifically online--to be at least *sensitive* to the point that Melanie Joy made. “Debate” can be very ego-empowering, especially when one is good at it, but then it can also make it difficult to distinguish between one’s ego-driven motivations from one’s “enlightened” motivations for “mere rational discussion.” <br /><br />From the pov of non-participants, the distinction about attitude is similar. Am I eager to see a particular side get “demolished,” “crushed,” “destroyed,” “owned,” “pwned,” or “rhetorically or intellectually humiliated?” Or am I instead eager to see a rigorous exchange where I’m primarily motivated to gain a better understanding of the various issues and competing arguments, so that I can come away more informed? For me on certain issues, it’s easier to take a “dialogue” attitude when I’m a non-participant, and Professor Francione’s exchanges that you mentioned are good examples. In particular, I found his debate/discussion with Professor Ringach very interesting and informative, and I’m glad it took place (thanks Professor Francione). <br /><br />So to directly answer your question, from the pov of a non-participant, I found Professor Francione’s debates/discussion interesting and informative--so in that sense I would characterize them as “good.” Does this acknowledgment mean that Melanie Joy was “attacking a straw man?” Not at all, because it does nothing to call into question her observations about “debate” attitude. <br /><br />Do you believe that her observations about “debate” apply to you or the people you’ve interacted with? If they don’t apply, then she isn’t saying anything of relevance to you, in which case there is no need, on your part, for objection (on *this* particular point); but if they do apply, then she *is* saying something of relevance to you, in which case it would be worth considering how to replace the “debate” attitude with the “dialogue” attitude. Joy’s point resonated with me *precisely* because her observations apply to me, so I found her remarks valuable. I suggest that if most people reading this took the time to engage in a little critical self-reflection, they might agree. <br />Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-53870616299460208312012-10-07T18:18:37.621-03:002012-10-07T18:18:37.621-03:00Spencer--This whole thing started because McWillia...Spencer--This whole thing started because McWilliams wrote an incredibly uninformed piece in which he attacked abolition. Francione asked him to debate the position that he, McWilliams, promoted. McWilliams accepted and then declined after he realised that his position was not defensible, and for several weeks, we've been hearing sanctimonious speeches by McWilliams and Joy that actually include Joy telling us that Socrates would advise McWilliams not to debate Francione.<br /><br />And now, you are saying that Mylène got it all wrong and Joy was actually trying to distinguish "good" debate from "bad" debate. So let me ask you, how would characterise Francione's debate with Prof. Garner? Francione's debate with Prof. Machan? Francione's debate with Prof. Ringach? Francione's debate with Prof. Narveson? Francione's debate with Wesley Smith? <br /><br />I would say that they were all good debates. If you don't agree, then please tell us in what way you disagree. If you agree that they're all good debates, then you will be forced to conclude, as I have, that Joy is attacking a straw man and that this is all about a desperate effort to try to deflect attention from McWilliams' irresponsible and embarrassing essay into an attack on Francione. <br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04014812016885580228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-1818258748079690132012-10-07T03:30:55.869-03:002012-10-07T03:30:55.869-03:00Hi Mylene,
You are a fine writer and fun to read...Hi Mylene, <br /><br />You are a fine writer and fun to read, but IMO, I thought uncharity largely pervaded your analysis of Joy’s article both in substance and (snarky) tone, notwithstanding the fact that some parts of her article can be difficult to interpret (I also disagree with some of her claims). <br /><br />One example regarding debate, where you wrote: “according to Joy, merely having a rational critical discussion where you're expected to defend claims you make is tantamount to falling into this supposed non-vegan and "non-liberatory" mindset. Joy, in effect, decides to attack the entire idea and usefulness of debating, in and of itself...In fact, not only is it all about winning, but it's about labeling the person with whom you're engaging in critical dialogue a ‘loser’.”<br /><br />This does not accurately represent what Joy was trying to say, for when she discussed the idea of “debate,” she had a very specific understanding in mind--one which involves *more* than “merely having a rational critical discussion.” Her initial qualification “In general, when we debate…” should have made clear that her intent was not to “attack the entire idea” of debate, but to focus on *how* debate is commonly practiced, where the goal *is* to win an argument, to defend a certain position, or to demonstrate why some argument is unsound or fallacious. “Debate” as commonly practiced is certainly counterproductive and undesirable, especially when critical issues are at stake, and one doesn’t have to look hard to find numerous examples in various forums and current politics. As an experienced participant in “debates,” in areas other than animal rights, I can tell you that this mentality is pervasive. <br /><br />Consider the practice of trying to demonstrate that an argument is fallacious or unsound. A person in “debate mode” is strongly motivated, usually by ego, to “destroy” or “refute” the argument, because doing so is intellectually rewarding--it can make one feel good or powerful (I speak from personal experience). I believe most people reading this probably understand what I’m talking about, and if they engage in a little critical self-reflection regarding their debate motivations, I believe Joy’s observations will ring true. <br /><br />But does this mean Joy is suggesting that “dialogue” should not involve “rational critical discussion?” Of course not. The distinction between “debate” and “dialogue,” according to Joy, lies in their different goals: one is largely ego-driven, the other is not. Thus in this sense the two processes *are* “two completely altogether different things.” Dialogue should *involve* putting forth arguments, counter-arguments, pointing out fallacies, rigorous scrutiny, etc, but it isn’t *about* those things--yet too often the difference is conflated, which I believe is Joy’s point. It’s *easy* to say: “Debate for me is merely about rational discussion, and thus not about *my* views against others - it's about *which* view is right. I’m not personally attached to *my* views and arguments simply because they're mine.” Most people who say this to themselves are probably self-deceived (again, I’m no exception). As I read her, Joy’s suggestion is simply that when engaging the topic of animal welfare, participants should not approach discussion with a “debate” attitude, which is the source of much hostility and tension. That, to me, makes eminent sense, but I welcome anyone to explain why Joy's point amounts to "straw." <br /><br />Mylene, in light of my comments, I hope you would consider revising your current understanding of Joy’s article. Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-2369935674184839242012-10-06T15:40:59.471-03:002012-10-06T15:40:59.471-03:00Dear Mylène:
This is another fine essay.
What i...Dear Mylène:<br /><br />This is another fine essay. <br /><br />What is interesting is that the position taken by Joy and other "let's put aside our differences and all embrace welfarism but call ourselves abolitionists" folks is that their position is *exactly* the same as the one that welfarists took with respect to the use of "rights" in the 1990s.<br /><br />"Animal rights" emerged as a form of opposition to animal welfare. Animal rights as a concept made no sense if it was merely another name for animal welfare. Anyway, like Joy, the welfarists in the 1990s complained about labels and said that if their goal was to eliminate all (or much) animal use, and they wanted to get to that goal by using the same welfarist regulation that had been used for the decades leading up to the animal rights period, then they were "animal rightists" and anyone who disagreed was "divisive," "fundamentalist" "elitist" or whatever. Disagreement became synonymous with "bullying." <br /><br />To say that there is no real difference between:<br /><br />A. someone who advocates that we ought to abolish animal use and that the means to achieve that goal is promoting veganism as a moral baseline and rejecting "happy" exploitation and<br /><br />B. someone who says they hope one day to to see the end of all (or most) animal use and that the means to that end is "happy" exploitation and animal welfare regulation<br /><br />is like saying that there is no difference between:<br /><br />A. someone who wants world peace and advocates nonviolence in our dealings with each other and<br /><br />B. someone who says that they want peace as their goal but who advocates the use of war to get to the state of peace.<br /><br />To say that the differences are only matters of strategy assumes that the means do not have to be consistent with the ends and may even be inconsistent. So it's fine to advocate "happy" animal use to get to (supposedly) no use; it's fine to advocate war to get to peace.<br /><br />Please forgive me but I find such a position to be be, to borrow Bentham's phrase, "nonsense on stilts."<br /><br />Gary<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-36892288383001662062012-10-06T03:48:22.535-03:002012-10-06T03:48:22.535-03:00Thank you for such a well thought-out response to ...Thank you for such a well thought-out response to the Joy article.<br /><br />This discussion has given me lots to think about and I am grateful for your contribution.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Stevie<br />Co-host of Team EarthlingTeam Earthlinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05698527288303929259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-29123066595234668842012-10-06T00:44:11.768-03:002012-10-06T00:44:11.768-03:00Another excellent critique. I don't know that ...Another excellent critique. I don't know that I'm in 100% agreement with you "ideologically" or "strategically" (shudder!), but this is really clear and persuasive. Her piece was barely readable for me. <br /><br />Also, when I worked in campaigns and even more recently, we were strongly advised never to say "a small but vocal minority," because it's a condescending cliche and basically assholish. Interesting, no?ludditerobothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783216345720235716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-54471437262903771182012-10-05T20:53:45.009-03:002012-10-05T20:53:45.009-03:00What's the point of this? You spend most of th...What's the point of this? You spend most of the time simply summarising Melanie's essay with scare quotes and, frankly, confusing metaphor. What's next? Are you going to start simply [sic]ing people you disagree with? <br /><br />Occasionally you actually respond to something she says but it's always just baseless assertions the rely on the bias of the reader. Take this for example:<br /><br />"The thing is that likening diversity to those differences is less like comparing apples and oranges than comparing a bowl of gravy and a piece of granite. To insist otherwise merely undermines the seriousness of those differences."<br /><br />What differences? Why are they so serious? Why do you have to drag out such a tired cliche to describe them? If you want to convince anybody of anything, you're going to have to do a lot better than this: this is mostly handwaving.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285699217739515375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-72307392144159059932012-10-05T15:41:17.076-03:002012-10-05T15:41:17.076-03:00Excellent analysis. I've observed over the yea...Excellent analysis. I've observed over the years that abolitionists tend to say exactly what they mean: they say it <i>clearly</i> and <i>concisely</i>, with no obfuscation. In contrast, welfarists tend to write confused and confusing prose. Reading Melanie Joy's baroque essay made my head hurt.<br /><br />-- Alex ChernavskyAlex Chernavskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08200015595839585212noreply@blogger.com