No graphic images: But Why? (ignorance is bliss)

We all breathe a sigh of relief: this post isn’t going to unsettle us in any way. There will be nothing to churn our stomachs.

It’s always nice to see at the top of an animal rights post that there will be no graphic images, and if there are graphic images included it’s also nice to have that little warning: “WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES”, so that we can make the decision not to look. 

  This is something that I’ve been criticized very heavily for in the past: sharing graphic, unsettling images or video clips on social media. Generally speaking people will just let me be sharing my animal rights message (or “propaganda” as some of them call it, much to my annoyance. I must make a note to write about why that is inaccurate) but there are two things people just won’t put up with: graphic images and aggressive posts. I’ve even made an effort to not include any graphic images in my blog, because I was afraid that no one would read it if I did. And that got me thinking, why will people not read it, or watch the content? Why do people prefer to know when there are graphic images, so they can choose to look away? And I’m genuinely asking here, because if your stance really is that the animals are treated fairly and then killed humanely, and there is genuinely nothing wrong with what’s going on, why does it make you turn your head to see what is going on? Surely these images are humane, they’re fair and there’s nothing painful or horrible about what is going on in them? … Right? Even people who are fine with viewing that content admit they would prefer not to see it everywhere, or get annoyed whenever it crops up without warning, but why should you need warning if it’s all fine and dandy what’s going on?

The problem with this irritating stance is that it gives people the freedom to dismiss animal rights arguments as invalid. People believe what they see, and it seems if they don’t see in depth the cruelty of the animal agriculture industry, it doesn’t exist. So long as all you see is the happy cows and pigs they show you in adverts, that’s all that exists, to the point where people will believe a cartoon character telling them animals farmed for meat are happy over an actual experienced researcher with all the facts, and that researcher may find it hard to dispute this position, because they’ve been handicapped by the fact that they’re unable to show the actual evidence they have because no one wants to see it. And that’s fine, if you don’t want to look at distressing images and video clips I can perfectly understand that. I don’t enjoy them either.
But going on to argue there is no cruelty in the industry and that vegans are spreading lies and propaganda and it’s not really like that isn’t fine. It’s not logical or sensible to dismiss evidence you haven’t even paid attention to.

For me personally, I find a lot of people seem to think if I had more compelling arguments I might be a bit more successful, but the fact is everyone expects the animal rights movement to fight for their cause with one hand tied behind their back. It’s very easy to say there is no cruelty in the industry when you’ve banned showing the evidence! When posts get flagged for having the slaughter of a cow or a pig, and people complain and ask for it to be taken down when there is “distressing” footage of a chicken being bullied or a cow being milked, how can anyone be expected to know about the cruelty of the industry they are supporting?  Everyone is up in arms when the artificial insemination of a cow is called rape, but when we try to show you what it looks like the images are taken down, removed and complained about because they’re too vulgar and graphic: a bit like you expect images of rape to be.  But because we can’t show our reasons for calling it that, the point is refuted as unfair and offensive.

It’s no surprise that no one will recognize our points as valid when we’re not even allowed to give our evidence. People can easily throw out weak arguments such as: “that kind of thing doesn’t happen in this country” and “I only buy humane, free-range, so what I get is okay” when all our options for proving them wrong have been taken from us and labeled as graphic content. No one will even take a look at an article or video literally showing them what their “humane” meat is, but they’re still happy to support it.

If you’re going to talk about “humane” and “free-range” and support it and argue for it, logically you should know what it contains; you should know what the context is behind it. And I’m not talking about knowing what the words mean, I’m talking about understanding how and why “humane” is different to “non-humane” meat and animal products, and having the evidence to back it up.  Do you know how a pig is killed with non-humane methods? Do you know how a pig is killed with your so-called “humane” methods? What’s the difference? Take me through the process.
Of course, no one ever can. They sometimes offer idle comments like “it’s when the animal doesn’t know it’s going to be killed” or “it’s when the animal can’t feel it”. One person even offered the ridiculous suggestion that “when an animal does realise what’s happening in the slaughterhouse it’s taken out into the field to calm down for a bit”. All of these things, anyone who has genuinely looked into the actual process behind the slaughter will be able to tell you, are completely incorrect.  And the irony of it is, there isn’t even a label on most of the products these people buy claiming that the product is “humanely killed”. I’ve honestly never seen that on a meat product in England. It’s just something that seemingly rational people have decided is true, even though there is no reason to think it, making it irrational.

Did you know, for example, that there is an organization called the “Humane Slaughter Association” that deals with making sure the process really is humane? Most people who use the argument of “humane” killing don’t, and yet it will turn up on the first page of google results for searches like “is my meat humane?” “What is humane killing?” and other similar searches, proving that none of them have really looked into it. And though they like to throw out terms like “humane” when you ask them to explain what that means their answers give you clues that they don’t really know what it means.

So I ask you to stop criticizing the graphic content posted by animal rights activists and ask yourself, is it the person you’ve got a problem with, or the picture? If an action captured in an image distresses you, you need to act to stop the action, not the image. And if you avoid graphic content, you should avoid the byproducts of that content: meat. Dead animals. The thing to remember is that the graphic content you turn your eyes away from is real. It's images of things that are really happening, it's not some really realistic painting animal activists have drawn for fun. It's from inside the slaughterhouses and the farms that you support when you buy animal products. Be reasonable, be rational, be vegan.

(Like me. Hi.)
 (I feel like I should state that the majority of the pictures in these blogs are not my own creation. I tend to just google phrases from the blog and fit in the most fitting, most eye-catching or most amusing image. So disclaimer: for the record, they're not mine. Except this one of me at the end here.)