To try and keep this thread on course, I think general discussion of vegetarianism should go in another thread, if anyone wants to discuss that issue further.
I'd like to have a look at the notion of whether an ill-received ad of PETA can actually harm their cause. I don't think it works that way. You'd have to be pretty perverse to want to do something about animal welfare but refrain from doing so because you're offended by PETA's holocaust ad campaign.
And I've already mentioned that I'm not convinced by the line of argument whereby PETA et al would win more converts if they were less shocking. I think that's a fallacy used by those who are against animal rights, and when animal rights supporters use it then for me it’s akin to lefties using terms like political correctness. I'd like to quote Flyboy excellent explanation of why the red mist descends when people use the term "political correctness":
Political correctness is a myth. It is a pejorative term used to give the impression that people who act or speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia, or class snobbery a) have the whip hand, and b) are censorious, unreasonable, petty, extremist killjoys. It is a sophisticated linguistic weapon in the arsenal of newspapers, politicians and other propagandists. Many purported examples of political correctness turn out upon investigation to either be entirely reasonable (unless one favours sexism, racism, etc) or apocryphal.
I feel the same about any statement that implies that animal rights are ignored because those loony activists ruin the message with their extremism. Anyone who knows enough about PETA to criticise their more hardline campaigns also knows the basics about factory farming and other animal abuses. If they choose not do anything about it then that's their choice. But to say that their lack of action is somehow the fault of PETA is a fallacy, proved by the fact that PETA and others, as I have said, run plenty of more constructive and educational campaigns. It’s an excuse and it plays right into the hands of those who don’t want animal abuse curtailed.
The majority of animal rights campaigners, vegans, etc. are constantly having to tiptoe around the issues for fear of seeming critical of a meat-eating culture. We are in the minority, trying to get our voices heard, and when apologists for the dominant ideology move the goalposts to make it seem as though the problem would be closer to a solution if only those krayzee activists would calm down, then I begin to see red.
This is how I see it, to paraphrase Flyboy, “It is a pejorative term used to give the impression that people who act or speak out against animal abuse a) have the whip hand, and b) are censorious, unreasonable, petty, extremist killjoys. It is a sophisticated linguistic weapon in the arsenal of newspapers, politicians and other propagandists. Many purported examples of shocking animal rights campaigns turn out upon investigation to either be entirely reasonable (unless one favours animal abuse) or apocryphal.” |
