TOPICS:
JAN 26, 2006 06:31 PM
vuc2373 said:
Nic said:
vuc2373 said:
Well, I figured a whole bunch of anti-PETA types were going to go on their usual rants, so I'll play devil's advocate here.
PETA ads may not appeal to anyone because they are not designed to. They are intentionally obnoxious. They're made to piss you off and go on about this, that and the other but - end of the day - you're talking about them, so it's a job well done.
Do I think they're adequately hammering their point home with this ad? Probably not. If they were to get right to the facts and keep it under 30 seconds, I bet they'd have a lot more success winning some sympathy to their cause.
Right now, their only giving interweb pundits *cough* something to scoff at.
Also, why in the world would they want that Superbowl spot? It defies logic. People aren't interested in thinking on Superbowl Sunday. It's like they seriously go out of their way to fail.
Which is precisely why they don't get the kind of support they need. Grrr... 
You see? You see what you've done PETA?! *shakes fist*
Yeah people are talking about them, but no-one is sympathising with the cause they're trying to promote as a result of these campaigns. Which is surely supposed to be the point of a charity, isn't it? They're called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Surely an organization concerned with promoting veganism and animal welfare would want to educate people on such matters without causing them to switch off because they are pulling a load of offensive and irrelevant horseshit out of the bag. And seriously, what is the relevance of the imagery at the start? It'll get people talking about PETA but not in a positive way. People will go on about how offensive or provocative the ad was, not about the real suffering that's shown later.
[Edited on Jan 27, 2006 by Nic]
I think PETA's strategy, though, is not to target mainstream thinkers and certainly not those who've already made up their minds on the subject of ethical treatment of animals.
What they're looking for in people are a.) those who agree with their stance but haven't taken action yet and b.) those who have an obvious disdain for commerical/pop/burgeois non-culture, such as you would see in the Super Bowl watching demographic.
PETA is, on many occasions by it's own admission, a shock-activism organization. They don't care about how many thin skinned people are offended by their tasteless presentations, they want to get the people who are "outsiders" in to their activities in order to stay afloat. Why? Because they know they're not going to come away with a decisive victory any time soon, so the next best thing is to simpley make as amny waves as possible until such time as people are more openly receptive to their ideas.
Let me reiterate that I definitely don't agree with their tactics.
As a person who strongly believes in the ethical treatment of animals, I'm a little bit flustered that they sometimes do dumb shit like this, but I understand the thinking behind it.
[edit]and don't call me Shirley[/edit]
[Edited on Jan 26, 2006 by vuc2373]
I can see what you're saying, it's just that I feel that there are probably tonnes of people out there who agree with PETA but would never, EVER donate money to them or join their organization because of batshit behaviour like this. In fact, this kind of campaign could actually lose them existing membership and donations because of the demeaning way it treats women and how it bears no relation to the subject at hand- much like how their campaign featuring concentration camp victims and lynched black people went over ie like a fart in a crowded lift.
I feel that they'd have more success at what they're trying to do, which is supposed to be promoting animal rights and veganism and educating people about the cruelties of experimentation, factory farming and the fur trade, if they'd stop going for such negative attention. By marginalizing animal rights campaigners and vegans even more than they are already, they're actually harming animals because no-one will be willing to support their charity or listen to their point of view.
[Edited on Jan 27, 2006 by Nic]
Mythicus
Lawnside, NJ
May 2004
JAN 26, 2006 06:56 PM
JAN 26, 2006 07:19 PM
FreakPirate said:
_Twitch_ said:
Even these?
The agriprocessor one put me off hamburgers for a good month. Denial got me past it, but still...pretty powerful.
See... if PETA put more focus on stuff like this instead of being idiots and putting out that milk ad and their ridiculous Holocaust campaign maybe people would care more.
I, personally, still can't get over the wingnut image.
I'm thinking they choose campaigns like those you mentioned just to drum up controversy and press. It draws a lot of people to their website I'll bet. I don't think it's the best way to go about it, but it is effective.
[Edited on Jan 26, 2006 by _Twitch_]
JAN 26, 2006 07:28 PM
_Twitch_ said:
I'm think they choose campaigns like those you mentioned just to drum up controversy and press. It draws a lot of people to their website I'll bet. I don't think it's the best way to go about it, but it is effective.
I'm sure it does...
Go read Nic's post. She pretty much said anything I had to say and more.
JAN 26, 2006 08:33 PM
JAN 27, 2006 07:59 AM
JAN 27, 2006 01:22 PM
JAN 27, 2006 01:33 PM
JAN 27, 2006 01:34 PM
JAN 27, 2006 01:40 PM
JAN 27, 2006 02:34 PM
JAN 27, 2006 03:06 PM
MrStitches said:
DireChocobo said:
ChezGeek said:
seriously. the website actually goes so far as to say milk is bad for you. and beer is healthier.
Technically, Milk isn't really all that good for you, but it's by no means bad for you. From my understanding, the homogenization process kills the enzymes that would allow you to uptake the calcium. It's basically just empty fatty calories. But I still put skim milk on my broke ass store brand honey bunches of oats, so fuck it.
Skim milk? Why not just use water?
Seriously! 
When I was drinking milk - I would only drink the whole milk
Wolfmaen
Roswell, GA
May 2004
JAN 28, 2006 10:40 AM
Wolfmaen
Roswell, GA
May 2004
JAN 28, 2006 10:50 AM
Quirky
Birmingham, AL
October 2005
JAN 28, 2006 11:06 AM
Cash said:
Destro said:
without milk, you can't have icecream......and everybody loves icecream.
hate speech! what about the people who are lactose intolerant....you prejudiced bastard!
but without breast milk, we cannot grow big and tall, play football, get injured, then brag about our injury to espn, get 15 minutes of fame, tape it, then sell it on ebay for 2 million dollars, then get all the money stolen from us by a two-bit whore and her two-foot tall midgit pimp after getting drunk off of gin and tonics because we lost all our original earnings on an Argentinian boxing match that rigged so we go down the alley, drunk, and die from blood loss because we thought stabbing ouselves with the beefeater bottle would lessen our woes! 
JAN 28, 2006 05:24 PM
JAN 28, 2006 05:59 PM
Clov said:
Besides, I can't really argue with activists breaking the law. Civil disobedience has an important place in activism.
You can commit acts of civil disobedience without committing acts of arson or throwing paint at people. There's being an activist and then there's being a lawbreaking cunt.
Lemonkid
Canada
May 2003
JAN 26, 2006 06:16 PM