I agree that messaging and choice of words are important from a strategic point of view: without ever lying, we can decide to stress one argument or another. And I admit my approach is not the one that would gain more supporters. But I have a tiny reach and PR is not my strength anyway; and I am only moderately confident about all this, so my interest is to gather counterarguments and spark discussion.
> _“So ‘exactly what we buy and use’ has a weak point: ‘we’ consists of many stressed people. ‘we’ can be manipulated and is manipulated currently. So to me, stopping the actual perpetrators makes much more sense.”_
My problem with that is related to what I mentioned above about my not being completely sure about all this: I would _not_ want all farms, fish farms, slaughterhouses, etc banned by law tomorrow. I very much prefer that consumers (and voters) push for them to become gradually irrelevant, extremely expensive, rare, frown upon.
