Nah, as I said I wasn't taking a side. I criticized the form of the comment, as it was unlikely to get the desired engagement. My complaint was the delivery method of the argument, not the argument itself.
I acknowledge and agree with plenty of arguments against the meat and slaughter industry, but the comment wasn't just downvoted because of a complaint about industry. I'm sure some did, but the comment itself just feels like many of the issues some scientists have with science communication, as well as some people with other types of debunking. The tone itself runs people off, to the point where the comment is kinda useless.
Just a personal option though; maybe it does work for some people. Also some personal bias; I prefer papers, sources, and the like over videos or documentaries. Partially because of how I am in general (I prefer tech docs over guide videos for work etc), and partially because I'm aware of many terrible documentaries that use production value to try and bamboozle people with lies.
Or we're aware or our country's effect on tge world, especially negative. Some of the US aid and our previous acceptance of asylum seekers in my opinion was required because the US either caused or was complicit in tge reason such aid was needed. Especially in South America, with all the coups and school of the Americas etc.