Really? That's how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let's try it with some social movement that's often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:

"You shouldn't call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that's unrealistic. Just stick to 'Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.' Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."

The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don't properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: "It's bad and you shouldn't do it, but it's still OK to do a little."

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm not advocating for half measures myself, but stating that half measures don't work is simply historically false. You call for radical measures, bomb a bunch of official buildings, get some rights, and then go back to step one. But it never happens overnight, no matter how much we want it to

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I'm saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.