http://www.salon.com/2017/08/19/if-we-cannot-defend-animal-rights-we-do-not-deserve-to-call-ourselves-progressives_partner/
“The world’s most pervasive form of exploitation, along with its
resultant environmental harm, can’t be laid at the feet of
Republicans, conservatives or those we define as bigots in our
society. That’s because both sides of the aisle participate in the
needless consumption of animals.
“Consumers are increasingly made aware that countless sentient beings,
just like companion dogs and cats, are abused and slaughtered for
products we don’t really need. Marketers convince the public that
animal exploitation is necessary to sustain human life. But it’s not
true.
“This profiteering is a byproduct of unchecked capitalism, producing
food products that cause cancer, contribute to obesity and exacerbate
the diabetes crisis.
“Public consciousness is sorely lagging on the issue. Standing against
the exploitation of sentient beings outside our own species is often
considered superfluous by progressives who embrace radical thought in
other areas. It’s not uncommon to hear a supposed liberal accuse
vegans of not caring enough about humans.”
Exposing the Big Game 
Reblogged this on The Extinction Chronicles.
How right you are. Just like everything else, humans would overwhelm everyone’s compassion and empathy for themselves alone – with threats that you don’t care about humans. Increasingly, I no longer do. I try to reserve much of mine for humanity’s victims.
Me too.
Yes, as you note, the progressives who embrace radical thought in other areas do continue to exploit nonhuman sentient beings and accuse vegans of misanthropy.
They don’t usually offer the same reasons as the conservatives, who refer to the Bible and dominion and castigate animal activists for demanding no-kill shelters while allowing fetuses to be killed.
Most progressives just do not take animal lives seriously. Speciesism is a concept they do not recognize or agree with. They become zealous social justice warriors and fight for human beings and their “isms.”
Progressivism can also be a feel-good vocation, getting caught up in political rhetoric, sharing the excitement of protests, basking in virtue. But animal activism? That can be a lonely endeavor. Not a lot of positive feedback and approbation there. And maybe the progressives realize how much they have to lose by accepting the exploitation of animals as morally wrong. Start valuing nonhuman animals as sentient creatures with moral standing, and there go the bacon and the cheeseburgers and the pizzas. None of the other “isms” demand such a sacrifice. Bummer.
As for the taunts and complaints of caring about animals more than people. I don’t argue with them because that goes nowhere. I made my choice long ago when I discovered more and more about the human capacity to bully and torment other creatures, while turning into sniveling cowards themselves when the bull fights back or a bear can run faster than they can. I just say that Dr. Palmer wasn’t punished enough and that I wouldn’t have gunned down Harambe—then wait for the outrage.
NOTE: While reading the comments in the Slate/Alternet article, I came across the same old complaint about veganism. You know the one about how vegans murder plants. Well, Konrad Lorenz, a well-known ethologist, had an answer for them: “Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between a head of lettuce and a dog should commit suicide for the good of society.”