I don't agree 100% with everything. However I do think I can respond to some of these points:
Shine light on them, and restrict rain.
Exactly? That needs to happen on the ecological level. You won't get anywhere blowdrying or shining spot lights on individual trees, too much sun and no rain has to happen on the forest level. Yes, the individual trees need to be dry, but the status of a few trees does not matter. Of course if you could magically dry a tree in a way that compelled that tree to dry all the surrounding trees ... that's the point.
That said, I think forest fires and neurons are more of an illustration than evidence. Clearly a forest fire or a thought has little to do with one tree/neuron - but what about social movements?
The actual evidence was what was presented about social movements and about scholars. I think we have imperfect information in general, but I think the evidence presented on that front was compelling but not conclusive.
I'm not sure who actually believes this in the first place. Thinking almost always precedes changes in behavior. When did you ever change without thinking about it first? To quote the video:
A lot of people advocate for doing things that don't change thoughts:
Tax meat
Plant based for health
Making plant based delicious
More non-judgy vegan food! Bake cookies don't preach!
...
I would say "activism" that isn't aimed at changing minds is far more common than preachy activism. I happen to believe both are needed, but I think there is an extremely compelling case that we have gone too far in the 'try to not ever hint to anyone we think they are doing anything extremely immoral!'
I don't think it's a great strategy being angry, though it will obviously happen from time to time.
I think this is an empirical statement that needs to be seriously evaluated to the best evidence that is available. Not everyone needs to go with anger as a strategy, but we just can't write it off on gut feelings.
More to the point. You need to speak in a language that actually have some support in the population.
This is a statement made without evidence.
This means that it's not obvious that hard language like that used in the slavery period will be effective with animal rights today.
It's true, it's not obvious. It needs to be examined.
And I hate dwelling on the slavery and civil rights analogy because people unfamiliar with animal rights can't understand the analogy, but I think we want to see the things that people said about slavery as less revolutionary than they were. In 1957 those boys who sat at the white counter were arrested. And many or most people thought that that was the reasonable thing to do. The black waitress said those men were making her race look bad. Let that sink in. It was aggressive, "cringy", disruptive and totally not well regarded.
So can I say for sure what will work? Of course not. But the idea that making people uncomfortable, seeming aggressive and unreasonable and doing the right thing even when society says it's illegal was just as poorly regarded and cringe worthy and off putting then.
(Actually, though I'm no scholar I believe that people today might just have more empathy for animals than pre-civil rights humans had for black humans. Because I still see some of that shit today.)
Ironically he seems to spend most of his time talking about creating the spark which he at the start of the video said was arbitrary, instead of actually talking about how to dry the forest.
The next talk focuses on that more I think. But his vision is creating a global network so that people who want to speak out for animals have a supportive community and don't feel isolated and they feel empowered to speak out and act out. Also to create memes and talking points (for use in conversation, video, protest and images) to help people spread the message further:
It's not food it's violence
Their bodies/(babies/milk/families/mothers/...) not ours!
There is no such thing as humane slaughter
Someone, not something
The number of people being oppressed due to the lack of animal rights? Zero. The animal rights movement doesn't have the same natural support that most human rights movement do. That's something we actually have to understand.
Agreed, this is a serious problem. However, every single movement of oppressed humans has needed to negotiate with the oppressive class. Particularly now we are seeing movements of humans who have very limited natural support. Gay rights has limited "natural" support so they needed to force the issue with the dominant culture. They have been successful (at this still on-going effort) mostly by coming out. Once people know they care about a gay person, it is harder to deny human rights and dignity.
Well, shit, animals can't do that. But we can. We aren't the ones oppressed - but we can come out in support of animal rights in a strong way. We can tell the stories of animals and make demands that seem unreasonable and keep repeating that they are not things to use.
Another oppressed group to consider is transgendered people. They have extremely limited "natural" support, in fact I've seen (multiple times!) people in LBGT groups argue for them to stop speaking up for their rights because it will just make the fight for gay rights harder. That's horrible! And it's true, because not everyone knows a person who happens to be openly transgendered their fight is harder. But by making their stories public, telling the stories of individuals, bringing the debate to the mainstream and demanding rights they are making fast progress.
All this isn't saying that DXE isn't doing good work. But I truly didn't find these arguments very compelling.
There are a lot of places where the evidence is extremely murky. However, it's clear that progress will happen when the main stream debate actually highlights the position that animals are not things to use and abuse, so we need that opinion presented strongly.