the art of euphemism & avoidance

Animal eaters must plead ignorance. They don’t know because they don’t see what happens, and if this convenient ignorance is widespread there isn’t going to be any expectation to. They say that if farms and slaughter houses had glass walls no one would eat meat. More importantly, if we did know what was going on and yet still chose to buy unethical items, it would mean that we are capable of being deliberately cold. Most people don’t want to see themselves that way.
Today it is difficult not to know. Also to know that whatever we buy has to be replaced from a product pool (and in the case of animal products that means a slave-pool). If we buy from it we also help to promote the acceptable face of it.
For public relations purposes, the animal death camps are called "farms" and "processing plants". These places have to seem to be “efficient and humane facilities which are servicing the public with the best in food provision”, which coincides with the image the customer wants. Meat-eaters prefer to hold an unbelievable picture in their head rather than think about images of animals being tortured and executed. The consumer must at all costs continue enjoying eating their favourite foods. But this comes at a price. One has to let go of the actual truth of things, so that we can continue enjoying wearing fashionable shoes or visiting zoos. By performing some nifty mental gymnastics we can navigate past the realities.
Double think is especially useful in tricky conversations where we find ourselves defending an ‘impossible’ argument. With the aid of double-think, unconvincing though it may be, we can run a standard line of argument that uses euphemism and eliminates the need to talk about certain things. We say: “It’s pointless to discuss this”. Meaning we don’t want to go there (or go anywhere near the subject of animal farming). We observe our right to avoid both the issue and those people who want to talk about it.