Sometimes, being in this movement is like being trapped in an elevator with a Mariachi band that just ate 1000 bean burritos.
Elaine Vigneault, the “eccentric vegan,” is hoping to drive some traffic to her sad little site by getting in on the critique that I made of Ryan McReynolds’s entry about his misunderstanding abolitionism. Though I may deal with her entry itself later if I’m bored enough — and hey, it had pictures! That makes anything easier to read! — I just want to publicly correct the lies that Vigneault is attempting to spread about us. I posted a response on her blog, but I do not trust her to be honest about posting it. I suspect she has such a vendetta against us that she’d probably edit the response to say something totally different than what I’d acutally said. In case she refuses to post my comment on her blog, or in case she edits or distorts it, I present her comment and my response here, for the sake of posterity, and so that you can decide for yourself who is distorting what. I realize that I’m giving Vigneault exactly what she apparently didn’t get enough of as a child — attention — but I don’t want there to be any doubt about the kind of ugly project she’s engaged in.
In the comments to her own entry, Vigneault says:
I appreciate your hope that this won’t be seen as a fight, however, I read Bob Torres’s post. It was unusually mean-spirited. He essentially argues that if you haven’t written a book (published under the same name as the one you use to blog) then you don’t deserve to take part in the conversation. Torres’s intro:
“One of the great things about the Internet is that someone who has no real training or background in an area can write whatever they want about it. This is also, simultaneously, one of the worst things about the Internet. This observation is nothing new, but I’m reminded of the downside of it whenever I read blog entries like this one by Ryan McReynolds. Mired in the self-assured certitude that only the truly mistaken ever seem to possess, there are so many problems with McReynolds’s claims (it’d stretch the bounds of generosity to call what he writes an “argument”) that it is almost difficult to know exactly where to begin hacking away. That said, the overarching problem is that it is not clear that McReynolds has actually ever even gone to the trouble to read Francione — or if he did bother, he didn’t understand what he read. Overall, the entry reads largely like a quick term paper written by a bright but lazy student who wanted to make big claims to get that A, but who could only be bothered to Google the Sparknotes on the topic.”
That said, I have to be honest: I think some of my own animosity towards Torres is rearing its ugly head. I like his podcast and think overall he’s doing a good thing by creating, encouraging, and supporting a vegan community. However, I strongly disagree with him on some points and I’m often extremely frustrated by him.
For example, in the last podcast he and Jen answer a question about their favorite vegan restaurants. They answered NONVEGAN restaurants. They live in upstate New York. There’s no reason for them to not have been to vegan restaurants in NYC or Philly. And the response wasn’t along the lines of “even if you live in BFE you can find vegan food,” it was simply the first thing that came to the top of their heads. They don’t bother researching or preparing for the podcast at all.
Better example: someone asked what they could do about their school cafeteria not serving vegan food. Bob and Jen hate PETA so much that they didn’t know/ didn’t care that PETA offers TONS of support in this area: http://www.peta.org/feat/flunk/veganize.html and http://www.peta2.com/COLLEGE/cyc-veganize.asp And they didn’t mention the campaign to get vegan options in public schools across the nation. Instead of offering real, practical advice, they offered empty emotional support.
It’s like Bob is more interested in getting into heated arguments about philosophy with vegans he doesn’t know than about actually working towards a vegan future.
(Bleh, sorry such a long rant. It’s got little to do with you, Ryan. I’m sorry I dragged you into it. I might edit this post above to reflect this conversation…)
My response, which should be here, if she has the guts to approve it:
You are certainly welcome to your misguided opinions, Elaine, but I would like to correct your misrepresentations of my positions and the things that we have said on our show, at least in your comment. If I’m bored enough later, I might take the time to respond to your blog entry.
First, I do not believe that one need have published a book or have a Ph.D. to make a contribution on these issues. I don’t hammer Ryan for his not having published a book; I hammer him for not having read one. That said, I do, however, believe that academic training encourages habits of reflection, thought, and analysis that tend to produce more rigorous discourse. I realize that this is anathema in the animal rights movement, but that also probably partly explains why we’re so deep in the mess that we’re in.
Second, you completely distort what we said on the show—in all seriousness, I wonder if you are a native speaker of English if you can misunderstand us this badly. I went back and listened, to be sure, and anyone else can go do the same: in show 106, it is at about 1 hour and 11 minutes in. Recall that the questions were from Twitter, so they are live during the time we are recording. We were not asked about our favorite VEGAN restaurants, we were asked about our favorite restaurants. The question was “What is your favorite restaurant, both local and global?” To that, we responded that locally, we had few options, but that we could be accommodated even by two local establishments, even where we lived. We then went on to mention Thai Cuisine in Ithaca, NY, which has accommodated us well as vegans. We then discussed our favorite restaurants outside of our area, during which time we suggested TWO vegan restaurants in Philadelphia, Su Xing House and Singapore. We said that we could not remember the names of the places we had been in NYC, but that we had eaten well there. Anyone else can go back and listen if there’s any doubt. What you say, Elaine, is a total distortion.
Third, there’s no one on our show called “Jen,” so I’m not sure to whom you are referring, but if you mean Jenna, then yes, Jenna and I did answer a question from someone about getting vegan options in her college dining hall. Having successfully worked to get vegan options in a college dining hall myself, I told her what worked for us: going to the top, using parents for leverage, and persistence. Vegan options in public grade schools are irrelevant to the question, as this is a college. And PETA is not an organization we support, for many reasons we’ve laid out in many places, so there’s no reason that we would be as inconsistent as to suggest that anyone consult their materials.
Fourth, you claim that we don’t bother “researching or preparing for the podcast at all,” which is a ridiculous claim, especially when you are talking about live questions taken while we are recording the show for which we could not possibly have prepared. One would begin to get the impression that you skimmed through the show just to find a few points to attack us on, Elaine. You wouldn’t be so unkind as to do that, now, would you? In all honesty, there is no way in which one could seriously suggest that we were not prepared for the show. Listen to the interview. It is edited carefully, and the questions show that we did our homework on their latest album. Check the parts where we talk about news pieces. And listen to the voicemails. All of that requires research and preparation.
If you want to attack us, Elaine, have the moral fortitude to do it correctly, by attacking our positions for what they actually are, not for the distortions that you imagine them to be. One might begin to get the sense that cheap shots are the only way for you to attack us, and frankly, that makes you look worse than us.
From this lovely little back-and-forth, I’m left thinking that Vigneault was only fast forwarding through our show to find a few things that she could hopefully attack us with, and in doing so, she somehow missed that we were taking live questions. I wish I could say it was despicable, but it doesn’t even rise to that level. It is just pathetic.
As for the jibes about my wanting to debate philosophy more than wanting to work towards a vegan future, I’ll just say that Jenna and I have worked hard to get people to go vegan, and the thousands of vegans who have emailed us over the years we’ve been doing this to tell us that something that we did got them to go vegan convinces me that we’re not doing too badly at it. It may not work for everyone, but we do exactly what we say others should: we use our talents to the best of our ability to help build a genuine vegan movement that demands social justice for all, animals included. If Vigneault thinks that this isn’t enough, she’s probably right. I always feel that I could be doing more—how can anyone who really understands the problem not feel like that?—but I also think that “debating philosophy” is essential if we’re going to have sensible reasons guiding our actions. As I argued in Making A Killing, the lack of thinking that currently suffices for “theory” in this “movement” is probably why we’re so much less effective than we could be. Certainly, farty mariachis like Vigneault who are more interested in the politics of distortion and self-aggrandizement don’t help the situation.
With that said, I’m now going to get back to the unimportant work of putting the finishing touches on the 2nd. edition of Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World, you know, that worthless book that never got anyone to ever go vegan. 
Comments on this entry are closed.