The material incentive to raise meat for slaughter is that people buy it. You remove that incentive by not buying it, fewer people will raise meat for slaughter.
Joseph Stalin himself described boycotts as a viable means of political activism.
The material incentive to raise meat for slaughter is that people buy it. You remove that incentive by not buying it, fewer people will raise meat for slaughter.
Joseph Stalin himself described boycotts as a viable means of political activism.
if the point is to stop the raising of animals for slaughter, that is literally abolishment of the meat industry.
which would be good
not really sure what youre not getting here.
Reality has a big switch that says "meat." It can be on or off.
:yes-sicko:
either you want that switch flipped off or you dont. "harm reduction" doesnt flip switches
You know, you can want the switch flipped and try to reduce harm in the meantime. Unless you can come up with some very inventive way that not buying meat impedes your ability to do activism to abolish meat entirely.
my god, its almost like my whole point was that "not buying meat" is not enough in and of itself to make any headway on that second part, and thus conceptualizing it as a boycott is counterproductive because it instills the idea that one has done enough :shocked-pikachu:
The problem with your argument is that it literally just is a boycott.
"withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest." Oxford dictionary
It is very clearly a withdraw from commercial relations, and very clearly done in protest
"to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions" Merriam-Webster
You might take exception with "concerted," but as I have said this cultural phenomenon practised by millions of people over decades not to mention numerous organizations that advocate for a plant based diet.
"to refuse to buy a product or take part in an activity as a way of expressing strong disapproval" Cambridge dictionary
It clearly expresses strong disapproval.
The second half of your argument is that it apparently promotes an idea that I have never heard anyone express either directly or indirectly. On the contrary, animal rights activist are some of the most notoriously committed and militant activists there are.
Your concern is that by calling a boycott a boycott you might promote an idea that is the opposite of the idea that people actually have of people who carry out said boycott.
quoting the dictionary at me (lmao) does not change at all what a boycott actually is for, that is, to alter the way a business operates based off of their percieved loss of revenue, which they can regain by modulating behavior in accordance with a set of demands.
veganism is not a boycott, because it doesnt seek for the meat industry to take any action which would result in vegans resuming the purchase of meat.
im done responding to this.
Ok, well as I have said it does disincentivize them by reducing the size of their market, which does reduces the value of their product based on a reduction in demand, which in turn will reduce investment and less investment means less money to build factory farms and slaughter houses.
So if you want to continue calling the people using the commonly held definition of the word boycott anti materialist for believing that a reduction in demand for a product has an effect on the profit motive, which is about as materialist as you can get, because of a fear that it might create a perception of vegans that is completely contrary to the actual public perception of vegans, then I think you are going to be having a lot more of these discussions in the future.
In the meantime, I'm going to keep "being a radlib" and advocating for veganism.