March 28, 2006: On squirrels and jelly candies
I saw something on the Internet yesterday that riled me up a little bit. It seems that a British group, the Vegetarian Society, has named Bassett's Jelly Babies, a popular candy, the year's most offensive food product, according to the Manchester Evening News.

Why? Because they've got gelatin in them, of course. Gelatin, as everyone knows, is made from animal by-products (ligaments, bone, that sort of thing). If you've ever watched Good Eats you probably know that it's what happens when an animal protein called collagen is cooked beyond a certain point.

And what's the Vegetarian Society's beef with that? After all, lots of foods have gelatin in them, and one would think that no reasonable vegetarian would condemn all animal-product-bearing foods, any more than any reasonable meat-eater would call for a ban on vegetarianism. Sure, it's a squirrelly and unnatural practice, but hey, this is the 21st century, people should feel free to mistreat themselves in any way they see fit as long as they're not hurting anyone else, right?

Well, leaving aside for a moment the question of whether the Vegetarian Society is possessed of (or at least run by) reasonable vegetarians, their problem with Jelly Babies is apparently that they're candy. The Evening News quotes Veg Society chief executive Tina Fox:

"Choosing a winner for this `award' is bound to be a close call, but we went for Bassetts Jelly Babies in the end as it seems so unfair that children, particularly vegetarian children, may be scoffing these sweets without being aware that they are, in fact, eating something that comes from the slaughterhouse."

I have two problems with this line of reasoning.

One: Its basic premise is fatuous. Let's be honest with ourselves, kids - there are no "vegetarian children," only children having vegetarian habits thrust upon them by their parents. Being a vegetarian is a decision, one that in the case of small children is being made for them, not by them. Left to their own devices, kids don't give independent thought to the concept of vegetarianism until they become emo teenagers. All things being equal, we all know the little buggers would be happily socking away ligament by-products with the rest of us.

(Besides which, Trebor Bassett claims further down in the same article that Jelly Babies aren't marketed to children anyway. "Two thirds are bought by households with no children in them," he adds, though for the record I have no way of verifying that.)

Two: It fairly reeks of the we-know-what's-best-for-you self-righteousness so commonly found in activism. This never fails to irritate me (even when it's offered in support of something I agree with, unlike here). "It seems so unfair." What the hell is that? Are these parents who are imposing their vegetarian views on their children incapable of knowing that Jelly Babies are made with gelatin and transmitting that intelligence to the kids? One presumes the package mentions somewhere what's in the product. Beyond that necessary and prudent practice, why is it suddenly the manufacturer's problem? Why is it suddenly implied to be my problem?

This kind of high-handedness is why activist causes make slow progress. By taking stances like this - snottily declaring popular foods "offensive", adopting the ever-popular "won't someone think of the children" offense - activist groups like the Veg Society alienate the middle ground and set themselves back. Folks like me, who would never dream of adopting such views but are prepared to deal diplomatically with those who hold them as long as they deal diplomatically with us, get our backs up and decide that if they're going to be that way about it, the hell with them. Maybe they are all a bunch of flying squirrels after all.

The result? Something like my tone in the first part of this piece. If you're a vegetarian, you didn't like it much, did you? Felt like I was attacking you personally, eh? Even if you yourself don't agree with the extreme stance the Vegetarian Society reveals by going after Jelly Babies this way. This is what happens to a discourse with extremism involved. It becomes personal when it should be impersonal. Feelings are hurt when they shouldn't enter into the discussion at all. Nothing productive is achieved.

The Vegetarian Society's decree against Jelly Babies is only an example of this syndrome. It's in effect all along the activist spectrum, from abortion rights to international trade, across politics and religion. If you act like an idiot in the name of a cause, you give your whole cause the whiff of your idiocy. You taint your more moderate colleagues with your pushy extremism. You are, in short, not helping. Guilt by association is a very real phenomenon and even those of us who intellectually recognize it as a fallacy still fall prey to its emotional resonance.

For a while, a few months ago, the White House was floating the idea of replacing the phrase "global war on terror" with "global struggle against extremism". Surprisingly - for such euphemistic constructions usually sell pretty well, cf. George Carlin's old "shell shock vs. post-traumatic stress disorder" routine - it didn't fly very far. As such, I feel free to hijack it for my own cause. In my hands, it'll be employed with more linguistic fidelity anyway.

So come on, everybody. Join my global struggle against extremism. I'm not saying you shouldn't support causes, or even that you shouldn't support them passionately. I'm just asking everyone to apply the Reasonable Person test to their actions in support of a cause. It's easy. Just stop before you do whatever it is you're thinking of doing and ask, "Would a reasonable person do this?" If the answer is in doubt, don't do it.

Simple as that.