My response on a new video by ModVegan. The video with a part of its description:
Can vegans support animal welfare campaigns without compromising on animal rights? Does advocating for some animals undermine our desire to see justice for all animals?
Gary Francione has long argued that Single Issue Campaigns are bad for the vegan movement. While I agree that many single issue campaigns make non-vegans feel better about alternative forms of cruelty (leather instead of fur, duck instead of foie gras). But I think some single issue campaigns can be great.
Margaret, I disagree with you and Francione on this one :) - well, on the beginning arguments. I think both ant fur and anti foie gras are useful, they brought real changes, including legal limitations, plus general public awareness about such types of problems. Your argumentation for anti cat fur is applicable to those causes. No one implied that people should replace fur with leather.
I do not like all-or-nothing campaigns because they are too broad and require too much change from people, who are not ready to abolish everything at once, and who will just ignore them. Incremental change, if probable, is better than nothing to concentrate on. Veganism, abolitionism and single issue causes can coexist. Also, killing animals for art (film) is my personal no-no.
I also found another video with Margareth on Francione:
Such an interesting conversation - thank you! I was in the linkedin group for ethical vegans for many years, it was exclusive for supporters of Francione. Unfortunately, the manager and I disagreed too much :) Margaret, I'll look up the kindle book, thanks for the info!
Fruitarian's Network I know an Abolitionist who was banned from Francione's page because she defended her friend after her friend was banned for some disagreement with Francione or the moderator. Then I myself got blocked from an abolitonist group for being friends with her, even though I'm an abolitionist who genuinely hates most if not all of the same non-abolitionist things that Francione hates. They're a weirdly exclusive little group online. The internet can facilitate that kind of shitty behaviour. I understand excluding non-abolitionists ("welfarists") but they go further than that in the defence of superficial idiosyncracies and personalities as if they were fundamentally important principles.
This is a familiar scenario for online communities :) That professional group never grew much, and became practically inactive.