i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women's movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, "We're sentient beings too!" They argued, "We're fully human too!" Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.
this reads like cope. make any excuse you want, but if you want to save animals from the livestock industry, you're going to need to choose an effective method.
so when you said "what he's essentially saying" you were lying. what you could have truthfully said is "i'm afraid he might mean". you chose to put words in his mouth. that's bad faith.
everything you've said in this specific comment to which i'm responding is good faith interpretation of what he said. but this isn't the whole of what you're claiming he is saying and implying.
and then you made a leap of logic from what he said.
this phrase:
He’s essentially saying:
is a huge red flag. you're not just quoting him. you're telling everyone else how to interpret what he's saying, removed from the context of his piece.
there are more slaves now than ever.