Constructive Infighting cover art

Constructive Infighting

Constructive Infighting

Listen for free

View show details

About this listen

 This week, I’ve got a double feature for you inspired by the recent firestorm of debate over Farmkind’s anti-Veganuary campaign. This post brings readers from across the world up to speed on the best arguments from both sides, along with a related controversy from the year prior. Tomorrow, I’ll share my own thoughts on “Forget Veganuary” and on the troubled relationship between animal welfare and veganism.One of my most edgy and unique opinions about the animal rights movement is that Infighting Is Bad™. Whether it’s about cancelling people for having the wrong political views or about carving the movement up into illusory factions like welfarist vs. abolitionist or grassroots vs. professional, I think the movement wastes a lot of energy on pointless infighting.Yet even I must admit that not all infighting is pointless. In some instances, our movement has suffered from a lack of substantive strategic debates. For years, as abolitionists and pragmatists feuded over cage-free campaigns, there was no forum for systematic public debate between the leaders of each faction. That left grunts like me stewing in resentment, unable to properly evaluate the other side’s position. (When I finally got the chance, I found it surprisingly persuasive.)I write about how animal activists can focus on what matters, and avoid getting distracted by what doesn’t matter. Subscribe for free.So today, we’re going to learn about two master classes in constructive infighting, two campaigns that forced the movement to wrestle with big strategic questions. Both case studies came out of the London activist scene, cementing its status as the top animal rights city in the world.Each story is rich with lessons, but a few commonalities jump out right from the get-go:* Each debate was sparked by an actual campaign– that is, people weren’t just running their mouths on social media, they were doing something bold in the real world.* In each case, proponents and opponents maintained an open line of communication and engaged in vigorous public debate, preserving friendships without pulling any punches in their criticisms.* While some observers changed their minds, all this public debate failed to clearly resolve the question one way or the other. But it pushed both sides to gather better evidence and become more rigorous versions of themselves.I know what you all came here for, so I’ll start with the more recent story first, and we’ll see in the course of that how it couldn’t avoid bringing up an old wound.Case #1: Farmkind says VEGANUARY IS F*****G LAMEOn December 27, 2025, the movement awoke from its post-Christmas reverie to stories in right-wing British tabloids with headlines like “Veganuary champion quits to run meat-eating campaign.” At first, it seemed like the same familiar “Why I’m no longer vegan” story we’ve all read a hundred times. But this one was different.Toni Vernilli was renouncing veganism. She was joining hands with some of the most prolific meat eaters in the country– the second, third, and fourth-ranked national competitive eating champions.But while she was telling people to eat whatever they want, her message didn’t end there. People who care about animals but still want to eat meat, she said, can offset the harm of eating meat by donating to charities that oppose factory farming. Specifically, they should go to forgetveganuary.com, use a handy calculator to determine what size monthly donation is needed to offset their meat consumption, and let the organization Farmkind distribute that donation across the most effective animal charities.The first thing a sympathetic meat eater will see once arriving on the site is this comparison mocking Veganuary participants for annoying their loved ones and craving meat (an earlier version mentioned “feeling bloated from plant protein.”)Next, they’re faced with an impossibly hard flash game testing their ability to survive 31 days as a vegan, navigating a frowning carton of oat milk through challenges like “vegan meat processed ingredients” and “iron deficiency.”Finally, they reach the donation calculator. This is meant to be a relief– there’s something I can do besides be vegan! The user inputs their weekly serving of different animal products, and the calculator spits out a recommended monthly donation sufficient to offset the suffering it causes. For an average omnivore in the UK, the donation is £17, or $23, a small fraction of what they pay into the industry for consumption.(The calculator is based on something like suffering-adjusted days, where for each animal you eat, you need to offset an equivalent amount of suffering by helping several animals. For instance, Farmland argues chickens raised according to the Better Chicken Commitment suffer around 50% less, so you need to pay for campaigns worth two BCC chickens for every chicken you eat.)The vegans reactVeganuary, of course, did not take this lying down. ...
No reviews yet