'Engagement'? Or 'Ag-gag' Cyber Bullying?

One thing I've always tried to do with the battle raging on #farm365 is maintain my own integrity. That is important to me inside and outside of this. In general, in life, integrity is something I value.

I am my own person with my own thoughts and those are my promotional virtues. I always try to approach a conflict with questions rather than accuse, but it doesn't seem to go both ways.

~

During the course of the last two months, I have have been personally attacked on numerous occasions. One malicious person went so far as to steal my profile photo, make a fake 'vegan' account and post extremely sexual and rude tweets as if they were me, engaging others and attempting to defame my character and my work. He's stolen numerous people's profile photographs and posted inappropriate things about them. No one really seems to care, on either side. It's childish, it's pathetic and this person is completely lacking in integrity. He is completely besides the point on #farm365.

That's one extent of the spectrum, then there are other sides to the lacking integrity spectrum. For example, a conversation that took place with a young girl about a month ago between her and I, she decided to post on her blog. She decided to use me, plain and simple. I found a lot of irony in her words describing this encounter.

Her article about me is here:
http://lelper.tumblr.com/post/107989018385/conversation-with-a-vegan-activist-on-twitter

Initially, she commented on one of my tweets to which I replied respectfully and a conversation ensued. Little did I know she was baiting me to be used in her blog. Rather than put her own information out there, she chose to use me to make her point. I don't see integrity in that. I don't see respect in that. Then she wonders why I blocked her.

No doubt she takes this as a victory as well, when I think it's
saying something entirely different about her that she's not
even considering.

The part of the conversation she was focusing on in her blog pertained to CAFO's (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations/factory farms), where the majority of livestock are raised (over 95% of all cattle, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc) and how they do not pasture-raise their animals. Even outdoor cattle feed lots are devoid of grass. Most cows are not grass-fed, they do not graze. I think, looking at the media and the emerging awareness and desire for 'grass-fed' beef makes that apparent.

I was talking about grass, the
green stuff found on a pasture...

More (very detailed) information on AFO's and CAFO's (factory farms) can be found here: http://grist.org/basics/confined-dining-a-primer-on-factory-farms-and-what-they-mean-for-your-meat/

On her blog, she cut out 90% of our conversation, as would be expected. She focused on what she wanted to to slander me and my standpoint, and even made false assumptions to propagate her agenda. Propagate, the root word for propaganda.

Let me elaborate on her 'usage' of me:

• She focused on the one mistake that I made, where I said that "less than 2% of cows even see outside." This should have said less than 2% of livestock. Of course, this became her focal point, disregarding the dozens upon dozens (probably hundreds) of other tweets (in following conversations too) where very valid points were made. My mistake, I accept that, graciously. If I don't acknowledge my faults, how can my merits deserve any credit and be genuine? 
• She says: "I also explained what feedlots are, so that she would hopefully no longer have the belief that cattle are raised indoors" I never thought all cattle were raised indoors, nor did I say that, that is just, well, stupid. She completely manipulated this part of the conversation to undermine my credibility. This was what she was referring to: 

Nowhere did I ever say I thought cattle were raised solely
indoors. 

• "She asked me questions about why I believed that raising and eating animals the way we do is okay, and then stopped responding. She probably blocked me at that point but it was nice to be able to connect by giving straight, factual answers to someone who would actually listen and make their arguments back to me." She says I blocked her, I did not block her. We went on to have a few more extensive conversations after this particular one. Currently, she is blocked, however.
• And here's the real kicker: "After our conversation she continued to post Anti-Ag graphics, but there was one difference: none were about cattle. It’s the small victories, folks. I have no doubt that she learned something from me, and that is what engagement is all about."  I have learned a lot yes, but not what you think you've taught me. I have posted hundreds of tweets since then. Dozens, possibly hundreds about cattle. This is a blatant lie by her. This is propaganda. Feel free to check my tweet feed (@musikrystal). She finds a small victory in thinking that she silenced me. 

Bullies do take great pride in silencing and controlling their victims, they depend on it, just like the animal agriculture industry depends on animals' silence. Now that the victims have found a voice in us, well, look: Attempts to silence us. And they take great pride in that.

Furthermore, my tweets are not "anti-agriculture", that's just the enemy she sees me as, that the agriculture industry has painted me as: An anti-agriculture, misinforming propagandist who needs to be silenced. "Big ag", as it is called, considers animal rights activists (and the freedom of social media) one of their prime threats, and one of their prime battle tactics is to get agriculturalists to 'engage' us, call us out, intimidate us, bully us to get us to be quiet. She seems to want to inspire others with her small 'victory' over me, which was no victory at all. Simply more propaganda. This is not right.

More on ag-gag bills here (by a member of the Humane Society): https://www.thedodo.com/community/Matt_Dominguez/big-ags-losing-ways-continue-996179072.html

The sad thing is, I did respect this girl initially, which is why I spent time with her. She has a strong knowledge base, but her moral and ethical base is the one I could not seem to engage.  No, not all of animal ag is horrible, and we see that pretty side of the industry in mass media everyday, everywhere, but a very, very significant, closeted portion of it is absolutely horrendous. 

Social media is bringing the whole truth to light. I'll
gladly lend my voice to those who cannot speak for
themselves.

I am not seeking to misinform anyone. I want the truth out there. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but one admission of wrongdoing doesn't make everything I'm about wrong.

This girl's blog pretty much tried to paint me as the poster child for a "propagandist vegan", based off of one wrong word amongst the thousands of words we shared. The rest of her blog contained assumptions about me that just aren't true. I'm an advocate for animal rights. I'm not anti-agriculture (they grow my food too). As I've said, my intent is never to mislead anyone. It frustrates me to no end that that is the blanket cover-all for most opposition to animal rights activists: Propaganda. Even if someone does make a mistake, that doesn't make it propaganda. Propaganda is about intent, about "propagating lies intentionally to mislead" people. Like when @lelper says I went on to never tweet about cattle anymore . . . Simply not true.  

Propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

So, this girl used me and my interaction with her in a biased and misleading way to promote and publicize her particular cause or point of view. Propaganda.

I don't need to use people to make my point. I can do it on my own, with integrity.

~

I approach others very rarely on #farm365 and I engage people only while the respect is apparent. For the most part though, I say my peace in my tweets and I leave it there to be heard and absorbed by others, to make them question things and search out their own answers. My truth is my own truth, as it is for everyone. I expect no one to read, swallow and digest mindlessly; I would hope, rather, that they didn't. I like to think people are better than that, that they have their own integrity, that they aren't lemmings, following the herd, mindless drones. I often hope for engaging, respectful conversations or debates, but they are, unfortunately, very rare and people are very hostile for the most part.

Integrity, to me, also means putting myself out there. Being willing to rely on my own strengths despite my own weaknesses. True strength, to me, is not being afraid to expose those weaknesses, to be human, to make mistakes, in front of others. No one is perfect, I acknowledge I am part of that as well. I am human.

When it comes to social media, I've learned the platform is anything but a playground. It's a battlefront of vicious proportions. People should be able to to rely on their own merits, but they focus externally on others and cannot promote their beliefs from within. This is who I try to be. What I put out there is uniquely me, bearing my own heart and soul, and that's a difficult thing to do in such a hostile environment.

I don't use anyone.
I am not a bully.

I don't use people because I want to or because the industry I'm affiliated with wants me to. I don't try to hurt anyone else. In fact, I try to shield people from the internet bullies (on both sides) by fuzzing out names and/or faces whenever I use their content.

I can make a point using their information without using them as human beings. I will use people for inspiration, but I will not use them. To me, that is integrity. 

~

I went on to read more of @lelper's blog, and found that most of her blog posts are her using other people (my friends included) to promote her own agenda and the agenda of 'big ag' (the agriculture industry).

Then I came across this, her initial blog post, which explains a lot:

http://lelper.tumblr.com/post/95783486375/what-engagement-means

"For a while now, a new buzzword has been tossed around the agchat community, and if I had a dime for the number of times it was said at the 2014 AgChat Conference I’d probably be more than few dollars richer. That word: engage."

Engagement, to me, means capturing someone's attention and opening a dialogue, an exchange of information. I looked up the definition, and none of them were anything like that. Am I the only one who thinks conversations can be based on respect, trust and integrity?

The only fitting definition is the latter, "A fight or
battle between armed forces". /sigh...

Engagement, seemingly synonymous in the animal agriculture community with "bully" and/or "slander" is just attacking. Attempt to 'engage' your audience, by my definition of engagement, is the respectable thing to do. That would be your consumer though. I am not that person. Engage into battle with me? Well, to be frank, I do not wish to fight. Discuss, open and honestly, sure. But this? No. This is why I blocked you @lelper.

I'll be honest for a moment, presumptuous even; it feels to me like this girl is being used by the industry, and is, in return, using others for her plight and the plight of the industry she supports. I think as much is said in her first blog post. We have all heard that bullying is cyclical. Whatever her true thoughts are, seem clouded by her approach, which is the approach pushed on the agvocates by "Big Ag" (and I've heard this from more than one agriculturalist, take the battle to the front lines because they can't control information with money anymore).

"Many of us are already practicing activism by writing our own posts, sending out our own tweets, sharing our own pictures, telling our story. However, doing more means taking things a step further, going after and taking on the misinformation by directly stepping up to the plate and saying that it is wrong." The first sentence is great, and full of integrity and strength. The second sentence, "going after" people (that's what she is doing) is wrong. If sharing your own story isn't enough, then slandering someone else isn't going to make you look any better. It might, if you twist and manipulate their words and their portrayal, but that too, is wrong.

"You know how it makes you feel when an animal rights activist or an anti-GMO thinker attacks your blog with their comments." From this sentence, I gather that @lelper doesn't particularly enjoy being "attacked" via her blog. I have never 'engaged' her, she's engaged me numerous times. She has fully "attacked" (using her word) me. Yet this is the epitome of what her blog is about, attacking others. She posts people's entire blogs on her blog, she posts portions of manipulated twitter conversations and seems to be okay with this. I guess she's doing unto others as they've done unto her. That is completely devoid of integrity.

"Chances are they will feel the same way if we do the same with their blog posts, tweets, facebook links, etc." Exactly what I said above: Other people that you or I don't know have made other people that you or I don't know, feel attacked. It's been a negative experience. You would like to facilitate that I guess? Some other people's random encounter has now driven you to personally attack me and several others. Again, no integrity, no respect. This is cowardly in my opinion and will only cause further breakdowns in communication. As a testament to that, she has been blocked.

They 'engage' because they don't have the integrity to promote their own industry from within, at least, that's how I see it. Slander is the new approach, disguised as 'engagement'. Cyber-bullying, as I've experienced in many different ways, is their social media ag-gag response. As a whole, they don't 'engage' anyone to have meaningful, respectful conversations based upon truth or respect or integrity. It's all to continue to promote that which the industry has always tried to hide.

I feel, without a shadow of a doubt, that all they want is for us animal rights activists to be silenced. Nothing would make them happier, and nothing would make the world a sadder place.

I stand by my words. I also acknowledge and stand by my mistakes. I don't use anyone else to make me or my cause look better, or bully people into being quiet. That, to me, is integrity. 

We never stop learning in life, and no one can know everything. As humans, we've mastered the sharing of information like none other. It's phenomenal what we have achieved. It's also phenomenal how we've learned to control information and use it as a weapon. Social media is changing that, much to the detriment of entire corporations that were built upon the control and manipulation of information. And so, the industry has turned the battle over to it's soldiers on the front lines because, simply put, they can't control social media. They have lost control, and it's changing things and affecting their industry in dollars and cents. They're worried, and rightly so.

@lelper is using her voice to use me to advance her plight. Seems she thinks making me look bad will make her, the agvocate, (and the industry itself) look better. That is the nature of a bully. Again, I come back to the word, 'integrity'.

My original post she commented on. 

Trust is earned by those whose merits stand on their own to feet and need not lean on the faults of others. Trust is given to those with integrity.

If anything, what I have learned is that Big Ag deserves less trust than ever. They're new campaign buzz word is "transparency", but really, transparency is what they're fighting against. Animal activists have no ulterior motives, we don't even speak for ourselves, we speak for the voiceless victims. We stand to gain nothing and take a beating in the process.

The truth can be found on the side whose motivations you resonate with. Greed or ethics?

I do this of my own accord. I stand up against agvocates who attend conferences and training on how to 'handle' people like me. Yes, they literally go through training to become tactical soldiers in the perceived "war against agriculture". Agriculture will always exist, but it needs to change. They are trained to confront and handle animal activism backlash, not to acknowledge the corruption or unethical practices, but to silence the emersion of that reality in mainstream media. Big Ag's new marketing campaign is to ruin the integrity of every agriculturalist (agvocate) on social media and turn them into their soldiers, their online bullies, to wage the war they're losing because money can't buy people's trust anymore.

The truth is out there, right beside integrity.


More blogs can be found here!