Which chat did this person witness?

[Tim Gier]

Corey Wrenn wrote a "critique" of ARZone based on her viewing of Peter Young's ARZone chat. 

http://www.examiner.com/vegan-in-roanoke/animal-rights-zone-promoti...

 

She writes:

 

"...the site is nothing more than just another welfarist organization that serves to confuse participants and detract from veganism and ending non-human animal use"

 

and

 

"It’s a place where animal rights celebrities can come in to receive a collective pat on the back.  And, it’s a place for advocates to soak in the celebrity sunshine and ignorantly accept welfarist or violent mantra in an atmosphere the stifles critical thinking".

 

I'd love to hear the opinions of ARZone's members about this. Is Wrenn correct about what ARZone is and do you all think of yourself as "ignorantly" accepting anything? 

[Sharni Buckley]

Is this the same Corey Wrenn who made a comment on the 1st ARZone podcast and had her comment rebutted by a few of the ARZone admin people?

Guess it really ate away at her.

Isn't it about time this obsession with ARZone ended? They'll never measure up to ARZone, so I really wish they'd get over it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard McMahan]

They are certainly important to me. And thanks again for producing them.

[Richard McMahan]

It worrys me that the hypebole Ms. Wrenn serves up with such nasty gusto, (could, and likely does), show itself in the many other pieces she has written. When her readers uncover this empty elitism, will they remain with the movement? 

Rational thought, conveyed with civility, is simply the only way to get on, and also, get along. I have no problems at all with ARZone.

[Tim Gier]

Hi Brooke,

You're right, it does seem silly to bother with someone who will make such patently ridiculous claims.  Perhaps the best response to petty foolishness would be no response at all. I'll try to remember that the next time!! (and there's certain to be a next time, unfortunately)

[Tim Gier]

Hi Sharni,

 

As you've noticed, it's probably no coincidence that Corey decided to write her nonsense after her comment to an ARZone podcast was rebutted. I guess this was her way of getting back at the site. One would hope that adults would be above this sort of thing. 

[Tim Gier]

Hi Richard!

I think you've hit upon something that ties into what Brooke said in her comment. It does seem that the approach Corey and others take drives people away - I know that lots of people are initially intrigued by some of the ideas of that approach only to become disillusioned by the attitudes and behaviors of its most vocal proponents. Their particular "movement" doesn't seem to be moving anywhere.

[pauline mcguigan]

This is yet another example of AbolitionistApproach disciples finding excuses to attack an AR group or individual(s).  They are obsessed to own the term abolition and determined to label everyone else welfarist.

Why are all the enemies of the AbolitionistApproach inside the AR movement?  It's like a trojan horse sent by the animal exploiter industries in an effort to divide us, and to turn the animal rights movement into a cupcake making debating society where the only debate is 'abolition vs welfarism'. They may make some vegans on the way but that's like collateral damage.

I don't trust that approach anymore, and I think it should be treated as dangerous while they continue to focus on constantly attacking advocates, groups, and orgs who don't see things their way.

 

It's a convincing theory being used to:

- discredit all advocates who don't agree with them

- deter all advocates from participating in any single issue campaigns

- deter all advocates from direct actions

Just doesn't sound like an animal rights agenda to me.

 

They can't respect the ideas or actions of others and go trolling around looking for AR advocates, AR groups, or AR organisations to attack.  If they don't agree with other approaches why don't they just move on and stick to tackling the endless perpetrators of speciesism in our speciesist socety.

 

The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable around anyone who pushes that approach right now. 

[Tim Gier]

Pauline, I agree with your analysis. These people seem to have reached the nearly incomprehensible conclusion that the tiny minority people from the general public who are actually within the AR community are more of a harm to "the movement" and to other animals than are the people who are actively oppressing and exploiting others. Their ideology is fundamentalist and absolutist and it ought to be rejected by anyone seeking to make real change in the world.

[Tim Gier]

"I may not be one of THE Abolitionists (who would want to be?) but I am AN abolitionist." <= well said!!

[Ben Hornby]

I might be wrong, but wasn't Tom Regan using the term "abolitionist" in regard to the animal rights movement, before Gary Francione even knew what the word meant?

It doesn't make sense that Francione and his disciples have stolen the word from Tom Regan, claimed it as their own invention, protect it in a feral way, and now claim Tom Regan doesn't understand what it means.

That's really odd.

[Tim Gier]

Hi Ben,

I don't know whether Regan specifically referred to the animal rights movement itself using the term "abolitionist" but any fair reading of his landmark book The Case for Animal Rights (1983) will show that Regan believed in what we now call abolition. In addition to writing extensively about the need to reject our views of other animals as things and commodities, he talks about the dissolution of animal agriculture in all its forms, the change of the legal status of other animals as property and the "abolition of the harmful use of animals in science - in education, in toxicity tests, in basic research" (pg. 393)  among many other things.

In any case, for anyone to claim that the Tom Regan of 2011 is not an abolitionist would be, in my opinion, ludicrous. 

[Lisa V]

I disagree with Wrenn's article for a few reasons ...

 

First, what she's asking for is the complete denial of intellectual freedom to any and all in the AR movement. How do I know I don't entirely agree with Peter Young - or anyone else - until I hear what he has to say? I'd really rather Ms. Wrenn not be in charge of deciding to what/who I can and cannot be exposed. But it seems like that's exactly what she's saying; discussion must be curtailed to only what's approved of by ... who? Who will be the grand arbiter of what is and isn't "vegan" or "abolitionist?" Whomever, it's intellectually restrictive to a shocking degree.

 

Continuing with the restrictive theme ..."new welfarist" and "violent" appear to be euphemisms for anyone who doesn't agree with Francione & his followers ... and used as a way of refusing to hear any opposing viewpoints. Even more problematic, it's also being used to enforce that extreme intellectual restriction. I think it actually borders on mildly abusive behavior ... anyone who is willing to hear an idea they may disagree with is accused of "violence." Not "inquisitiveness," not "curiousness," not even "wrongheadedness," but "violence." What could be a worse charge within the AR movement? Now that I really think about it, it's out and out bullying. It's also an insult to those who've experienced genuine violence.

 

I really appreciate ARZone because I feel welcomed here and, more importantly, don't feel like I have to hold a certain view just to join in. I'm an abolitionist, but I think I would be welcomed to come here and learn even if I wasn't ... and I do learn something every single time I come here, so I personally consider ARZone a huge success.

 

Lastly, I do think Wrenn has the right to voice her opinion and I would never discourage anyone from that, but for every minute any of us spends arguing with Wrenn or any of the Francionists, we've wasted a minute in which we could have been doing something productive.