I mean, I can see where someone would object to it being an effective method of obtaining converts. Directly equating dog breeders to klansmen and eugenicists is bound to offend people, even if the comparison is apt.

There's a schism among activists about the best means of activism, whether shame and insinuation is more effective than trying to use positivity to appeal to higher values of compassion, equality, stewardship, or whatever.

If we, shame, shock, and offend people, the theory is that it will backfire and set people against our position because we were assholes when we delivered the message. It lets people escape the cognitive dissonance by shooting the messenger: "He's right, but fuck him, I'll eat two steaks tonight, eh?"

But the happy liberal hippy stuff can fall just as flat or be ignored altogether. You're not about to win converts from those who think the EPA is a liberal conspiracy or hate on out-groups by appealing to environmental stewardship and compassion.

Different methods and different angles work on different crowds. On a nature hike? Talk about environmental impact. Middle-age people with health problems? Health benefits. Social liberals? Exploitation. Ron Swanson? Corporate farm welfare.