Would LOVE an episode on the recent Billie Eilish drama, because I'm confused...

Hi all, so for those who have missed it:
Billie Eilish, one of the biggest and most progressive celebrity voices from the younger generation, recently caused a bit of a stir online after she reaffirmed her belief in veganism - In a video interview, she said that you can't claim to love animals and also eat meat.

Now, for any long-term Billie fans, this would be trivial - Both her and her brother Finneas are long time advocates for animal welfare, as they are for a bunch of other progressive causes.

It would also not be surprising if this stir had been a run-of-mill right-wing freakout, as they're obviously always looking to demonize or ridicule anyone advocating for a cause - especially if they're from the younger generation: Often happens to Matt himself and Greta Thunberg is another obvious example.

But incredibly, unbelievably - to me, at least - the backlash actually seem to be coming the left mostly, where the issue of veganism and animal welfare is evidently much more divisive and unpopular than I think even Billie herself could have predicted. From what I can gather; people are scolding her for being elitist and out of touch, as a plant-based diet is allegedly something exclusive and unachievable for most people. At the same time, it just seems like people are angry at her for taking a moral stance, as a celebrity.

I'm really struggling to to see how this kind of reaction, and the underlying attitude that causes it, is not completely and utterly self-destructive, if you actually care about progressive politics and fostering environments where these can flourish.

Regardless of whether you think the issue of animal welfare/animal agriculture is important - although there are good reasons to believe that it is; as the industry is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, land and water depletion, animal cruelty and host of other issues that progressives usually claim to care about.

But even is you don't think its important, how is it beneficial to get angry and combative at someone who does? Especially when that someone has a huge platform and actually dares to use their status and influence to promote progressive causes? None of the reactions seem to actually disagree with the substance of Billie's stance but are just upset that she's taking it publicly. But why wouldn't you want the most privileged and powerful people your coalition to be leading by example? What kind of precedent does it set for your movement if you don't allow people to be genuinely idealistic and principled?

It just doesn't compute in my mind at all. Billie seems to be honestly devoted to this cause and thereby arguing on behalf on an incredibly subjugated, oppressed and vulnerable group; farm animals, and against an incredibly powerful and oppressive force; the animal agriculture industry. It seems like such a textbook standpoint for progressives to support at least in principle and I just can't understand the impetus behind these reactions.

So, basically: How can progressive people be angry when someone makes a moral case for a subjugated group, and against the biggest of big business and big industry?

A bit fruity and Matt's content is one of my favourite channels to progressive discourses online and I really appreciate how critically him and his collaborators approach the media and the origins of these celebrity-led stories, so I would absolutely love an episode that dove into this case.

But maybe this issue is just not a priority for progressives in the US and there's therefore no appetite for it in the audience? As a european, where green and environmentally sustainable politics are foundational for progressives, it is strange to see how rarely it's discussed in the US discourses.

Hope this kind of post is allowed here - would love to hear any opinions or insights on this matter, if you guys have any!