Jump to content

Large-scale protest against PETA for torture & exploitation!


vivalasvegans
 Share

Recommended Posts

That said, I've heard that PETA's sexist campaigns generate a lot of interest from the public in vegetarianism. I'm a consequentialist, so I don't have a big problem with that. If they can find a mainstream way to achieve these ends that is not so oppressive then that's optimal, but I've heard some great things generated from them.

Have you? The only reaction I have ever seen to PETA's 'stunts' has been and anger. I hear from so many people who can't stand PETA. And unfortunately, some people see all animal activists and vegans in a negative light because of their feelings about PETA.

 

Ryan Huling, with peta2, is a friend of mine and I challenged him on sexist campaigns. He said that demand for vegetarian starter kits in particular goes way up after these events. The negative backlash, unfortunately, is impossible to measure as far as I know. Furthermore, I think the movement should be doing its best to appeal to progressives, who would most likely hate these displays, but again I don't know how to measure that.

 

I don't think the for PETA in general has anything to do with the sexist advertising. I think that's a smaller part of the population; the majority just hate PETA because they're an animal rights organization and they do things that are seen as stupid, like the 'sea kittens' campaign.

 

I do think that PETA does some good things that get people thinking, like Meet Your Meat and other videos and straightforward information. Their stunts and ad campaigns like 'save the whales' do seem to get a lot of media attention, but the reactions I have seen to them have been almost universally negative, which makes these approaches counterproductive.

 

You also have to remember though, that a big message with a largely negative response may be better than no message at all. Many people are hostile to challenges to their ethics the first time and learn to agree over time.

 

I completely, utterly disagree with the idea that using sexist imagery or otherwise being offensive to groups of humans is OK as long as it helps animals. It's not OK to be crap to humans to help animals. It not like the only way to help animals is to make sexist or offensive ads. You can help animals without relying on that crap, so as they have a choice, the better, more ethical one, is clearly to help animals without demeaning humans. Wanting to help animals is not an excuse or justification for letting regard of fellow humans fly out the window.

 

The sad truth is that a certain amount of exploitation is necessary in order to put forth any animal rights campaign. We necessarily must engage in the capitalist system, for example, to produce the resources required for many big or even small campaigns. What we must figure out is where to draw the line, or at least the rough vicinity of where that line is.

 

I'm really anxious to have my mind changed on this issue because I hate to defend these stupid images, but it seems to me that a certain amount of playing into the mainstream is necessary in order to connect with the mainstream population.

 

I agree with your overall point that we shouldn't let concern for humans fly out the window; I think many vegans forget about the many other forms of cruelty they may be supporting with vegan purchases. (The bloggers at vegans of color did a decent interview on this topic on the Animal Voices podcast.)

 

(Ignoring for now my opinion that it actually does nothing at all to help animals.)

 

Could you quantify that opinion somehow? Please!? I really want to just condemn this shit outright, but it seems to be marketing to the 'average' (read: stupid and ignorant) demographic of society it couldn't reach with violent images and ethical arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to open too much of a can of worms here, but the way I see it....

 

It seems odd that PETA would say that they get a surge in requests for info after doing campaigns that are often viewed as sexist. The campaigns are, for the most part, targeted at men. Considering the fact that the demographics show that women are more likely to go vegetarian/vegan than men (can't remember the sources, but I've seen this numerous times over the years), plus, the fact that simply showing an attractive person semi-nude really doesn't do anything to show WHY you should consider a dietary change, it's confounded me as to how their campaigns along these lines really work.

 

To me, seeing some celebrity female spokesperson naked except for her unmentionables covered by lettuce doesn't at all make a point to me as to WHY anyone would give a hoot about the animals or changing to a cruelty-free lifestyle. I see it in the simplest terms possible - to me, these campaigns show me as much about the meaning of going cruelty-free as a billboard with an American flag that says "God bless America" does to make me understand the motives of the church. Yeah, you may be making your statement, but it's so far detached from the reasons why anyone would REALLY consider changing their lifestyle that I can't grasp how they work. If they DO work to some extent, perhaps there's something I'm missing in all of this, but I still hold my ground that there are far better ways to covey the message without needing to rely on a "cheap thrill" to force someone to pay attention. Nudity and exploitation are everywhere, yet when some average man on the street sees a mostly-topless woman showing off a different product, he doesn't seem inclined to rush out and purchase it just because it's using the human body as a focal point to gain attention. I've yet to hear the explanations from PETA as to why, if it won't necessarily work for all product endorsements with extreme effectiveness, why on earth would it make someone who previously never pondered making a great change in their daily lives opt to turn their diet upside-down? I mean, if someone can't be inconvenienced enough to go out and spend $80 on a pair of designer jeans because the manufacturer used sex to sell them, why would it be some sort of remarkable tool for promoting veganism?!? Some things just don't make sense to me.

 

Somehow, every time I try to play the scenarios out in my head, it just ends up in failure. Here's an example:

 

Man X has heard the reasons for going veg in the past, has seen some slaughterhouse clips, etc. like many people have, yet doesn't want to change his diet because he "loves meat and would never give it up" as so many people say. Man X walks past a PETA billboard that shows a woman naked except for some well-placed vegetables with an anti-meat slogan on it. Man X then says to himself "Wow, a naked woman covered in veggies! Now, seeing the torment that animals go through didn't make me question my eating habits, but THAT'S enough to make me go vegan!" and strides off to the local co-op to buy his first block of tofu, and he lived a happy, cruelty-free life thereafter.

 

See the far-fetchedness of how completely unlikely these types of campaigns are likely to actually be changing someone's mind about their lifestyle? Does it make more sense now in that, if such a thing were likely to trigger someone to contact PETA for more info, it's likely because they expect to be getting a catalog of scantily-clad women moreso than that they're likely expecting to make an actual change in their lifestyle?

 

That's the main point of contention that I've always had with these campaigns. I do understand, if people want to flaunt their bodies, it's their choice, but does anyone REALLY think that these things REALLY are what's going to change the movement and bring in people who are in it for the long-haul? Finally, here's the kicker - it doesn't matter if PETA sees a 1000% increase in requests for literature after one of their stunts IF it doesn't correlate to a significant increase in people going vegan. An organization can see a huge surge in requests for info, but that does not in any way mean that more people are going to do what that organization is promoting - the info is free, takes only a few seconds to request, and doesn't prove for a fact that anyone has the real intention of wanting to make a change. BUT...they can say that they find more "interest" in their literature after such stunts, which sounds all warm and fuzzy, but isn't proving any change in the usual non-vegan way that people are going about their lifestyles.

 

Heck, if I thought showing my bare arse would convert people, I'd be standing with both cheeks to the wind on the nearest major highway next to a big "Look at my ass, go vegan!" sign, but somehow, I don't see it working. And I don't see the PETA campaigns relying on sexuality as being ideal tools, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Personally I don't think the video was about sexism. I think its more about a woman that is a afraid that her hubby will cheat cause she only gets naked in the dark lol. so the photo shoots could have been less sexy I suppose but in all reality I think there is nothing wrong with a nude body and would encourage it but add all types of body types...not just some "model". all bodies are beautiful its only some of our society that has put such focus on certain body types....we see it all the time. I also think that we should have more nude colonies and educate people on the beauty of being in our own skin. sex crimes don't just happen because someone saw a naked body....gee I wonder what the sex crime rate is in nudist colonies and cultures were they grown up and do not look at the body in sexual manners. My belief is if you grow up seeing naked bodies all the time you get so used to it that it no longer becomes a shock. I say tv and magazines need to start showing nudity, how to use condoms, tampons etc....in a non sexual manner. Yes I know this would be very hard to do now a days. I wish there was nude yoga in Canada!

 

What would have been better is to have a video about people who support peta and in their personal lives still wear fur, leather etc....now that would be video.

 

http://deceiver.com/2008/12/17/khloe-kardashian-wears-fur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to open too much of a can of worms here, but the way I see it....

 

It seems odd that PETA would say that they get a surge in requests for info after doing campaigns that are often viewed as sexist. The campaigns are, for the most part, targeted at men. Considering the fact that the demographics show that women are more likely to go vegetarian/vegan than men (can't remember the sources, but I've seen this numerous times over the years), plus, the fact that simply showing an attractive person semi-nude really doesn't do anything to show WHY you should consider a dietary change, it's confounded me as to how their campaigns along these lines really work.

 

To me, seeing some celebrity female spokesperson naked except for her unmentionables covered by lettuce doesn't at all make a point to me as to WHY anyone would give a hoot about the animals or changing to a cruelty-free lifestyle. I see it in the simplest terms possible - to me, these campaigns show me as much about the meaning of going cruelty-free as a billboard with an American flag that says "God bless America" does to make me understand the motives of the church. Yeah, you may be making your statement, but it's so far detached from the reasons why anyone would REALLY consider changing their lifestyle that I can't grasp how they work. If they DO work to some extent, perhaps there's something I'm missing in all of this, but I still hold my ground that there are far better ways to covey the message without needing to rely on a "cheap thrill" to force someone to pay attention. Nudity and exploitation are everywhere, yet when some average man on the street sees a mostly-topless woman showing off a different product, he doesn't seem inclined to rush out and purchase it just because it's using the human body as a focal point to gain attention. I've yet to hear the explanations from PETA as to why, if it won't necessarily work for all product endorsements with extreme effectiveness, why on earth would it make someone who previously never pondered making a great change in their daily lives opt to turn their diet upside-down? I mean, if someone can't be inconvenienced enough to go out and spend $80 on a pair of designer jeans because the manufacturer used sex to sell them, why would it be some sort of remarkable tool for promoting veganism?!? Some things just don't make sense to me.

 

Somehow, every time I try to play the scenarios out in my head, it just ends up in failure. Here's an example:

 

Man X has heard the reasons for going veg in the past, has seen some slaughterhouse clips, etc. like many people have, yet doesn't want to change his diet because he "loves meat and would never give it up" as so many people say. Man X walks past a PETA billboard that shows a woman naked except for some well-placed vegetables with an anti-meat slogan on it. Man X then says to himself "Wow, a naked woman covered in veggies! Now, seeing the torment that animals go through didn't make me question my eating habits, but THAT'S enough to make me go vegan!" and strides off to the local co-op to buy his first block of tofu, and he lived a happy, cruelty-free life thereafter.

 

See the far-fetchedness of how completely unlikely these types of campaigns are likely to actually be changing someone's mind about their lifestyle? Does it make more sense now in that, if such a thing were likely to trigger someone to contact PETA for more info, it's likely because they expect to be getting a catalog of scantily-clad women moreso than that they're likely expecting to make an actual change in their lifestyle?

 

That's the main point of contention that I've always had with these campaigns. I do understand, if people want to flaunt their bodies, it's their choice, but does anyone REALLY think that these things REALLY are what's going to change the movement and bring in people who are in it for the long-haul? Finally, here's the kicker - it doesn't matter if PETA sees a 1000% increase in requests for literature after one of their stunts IF it doesn't correlate to a significant increase in people going vegan. An organization can see a huge surge in requests for info, but that does not in any way mean that more people are going to do what that organization is promoting - the info is free, takes only a few seconds to request, and doesn't prove for a fact that anyone has the real intention of wanting to make a change. BUT...they can say that they find more "interest" in their literature after such stunts, which sounds all warm and fuzzy, but isn't proving any change in the usual non-vegan way that people are going about their lifestyles.

 

Heck, if I thought showing my bare arse would convert people, I'd be standing with both cheeks to the wind on the nearest major highway next to a big "Look at my ass, go vegan!" sign, but somehow, I don't see it working. And I don't see the PETA campaigns relying on sexuality as being ideal tools, either.

 

It's not that people see Pamela Anderson nude and think "Wow I better go vegan!" but what happens is that they hear about or see a nearly nude woman, and out of curiosity visit the peta website. PETA can track where people who visit their site are linked from, then what they click on afterwards. According to Ryan Huling at peta2, a very large percentage of people who come from places like CNN.com etc based on a silly peta stunt, watch the videos, read the FAQ pages, and then request a vegetarian starter kit. At the old newspaper I worked, I knew the guy in charge of marketing and he knew how to do this with our website there. (Incidentally, our biggest news story in history was one I wrote about a PETA event in Lansing. It got national coverage and was featured on foxnation.com!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that people see Pamela Anderson nude and think "Wow I better go vegan!" but what happens is that they hear about or see a nearly nude woman, and out of curiosity visit the peta website. PETA can track where people who visit their site are linked from, then what they click on afterwards. According to Ryan Huling at peta2, a very large percentage of people who come from places like CNN.com etc based on a silly peta stunt, watch the videos, read the FAQ pages, and then request a vegetarian starter kit. At the old newspaper I worked, I knew the guy in charge of marketing and he knew how to do this with our website there. (Incidentally, our biggest news story in history was one I wrote about a PETA event in Lansing. It got national coverage and was featured on foxnation.com!)

 

I see: a propagandist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that people see Pamela Anderson nude and think "Wow I better go vegan!" but what happens is that they hear about or see a nearly nude woman, and out of curiosity visit the peta website. PETA can track where people who visit their site are linked from, then what they click on afterwards. According to Ryan Huling at peta2, a very large percentage of people who come from places like CNN.com etc based on a silly peta stunt, watch the videos, read the FAQ pages, and then request a vegetarian starter kit. At the old newspaper I worked, I knew the guy in charge of marketing and he knew how to do this with our website there. (Incidentally, our biggest news story in history was one I wrote about a PETA event in Lansing. It got national coverage and was featured on foxnation.com!)

 

Trust me, I'm not dismissing the power of attacting attention by using shock tactics. I'm rather trying to get at the root - WHY does PETA feel the need to use nake people (primarily women) to get the message out there? Why is it that spreading a message of kindness and compassion needs to be intertwined with nudity in order to get attention (don't get me wrong, I'm no prude and am not bothered by nudity, but they do use it for shock purposes, not to display the 'beauty of the human body')? Do they think that the vegan message is so inherently weak on its own that they NEED to stoop to the lowest common denominator via any means necessary in order to gain attention? My feeling is, PETA is large enough and powerful enough to get the message across without needing to play that game any longer. Maybe at one point it was necessary to get the exposure that they wanted, but without question, most people know of PETA now whether they continue to use shock value and insults (see the recent "Save the Whales" billboard debacle that offended plenty of overweight people), or not. What's to be lost from taking a sensible approach that's less sexist, less misanthropic, and showing compassion for all beings in a different sense?

 

I know it works for them, but I think it's over and done with for those kind of campaigns. And, as Tamzz posted here earlier via the deceiver.com link, PETA should be equally concerned with the fact that they'll promote any celebrity who will shill for some attention, even if that person doesn't actually believe in the message. These are the kind of things that are hurting their credibility as being any sort of spokesperson for the movement - it's little wonder why the AR community in general seems to look at PETA as that weird relative that's always getting into bad situations, the one that most hope won't be making it to the family reunion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, I'm not dismissing the power of attacting attention by using shock tactics. I'm rather trying to get at the root - WHY does PETA feel the need to use nake people (primarily women) to get the message out there? Why is it that spreading a message of kindness and compassion needs to be intertwined with nudity in order to get attention (don't get me wrong, I'm no prude and am not bothered by nudity, but they do use it for shock purposes, not to display the 'beauty of the human body')? Do they think that the vegan message is so inherently weak on its own that they NEED to stoop to the lowest common denominator via any means necessary in order to gain attention?

 

To a compassionate, rational, open-minded person the vegan message is, I think, straightforward, simple, and obvious. To the other 97%, it's misplaced emotion or anthropomorphism on the part of touchy-feely hippies. Can't we agree that, PETA or not, most people don't care? I've handed out thousands of leaflets, listened to or given multiple talks, and I feel good if one person at each one has changed their mind.

 

If the strength of an argument on its own were really enough to win people over, we'd live in a much better world. But I would think it's common knowledge that the world doesn't move on good arguments, but on PR, advertising, lobbying, money, greed, and incentive. Personally, I blame capitalism.

 

My feeling is, PETA is large enough and powerful enough to get the message across without needing to play that game any longer.

 

As both an activist and a journalist I can attest to the fact that your standard animal rights argument won't get much media coverage. You have to bring something new and interesting to the table and then use the 15 minutes to spew your facts/argument real fast. Is that ultimately counter-productive? I don't know, and it's impossible to measure with any precision.

 

Maybe at one point it was necessary to get the exposure that they wanted, but without question, most people know of PETA now whether they continue to use shock value and insults (see the recent "Save the Whales" billboard debacle that offended plenty of overweight people), or not. What's to be lost from taking a sensible approach that's less sexist, less misanthropic, and showing compassion for all beings in a different sense?

 

If you can show me a model that works, can be replicated, and takes the same target audience, then I'm game. I think Vegan Outreach leaflets are a great way to go, for example, but they have limited demographics and niches. If its proven that showing the gruesome videos in public will ultimately do more good, then maybe we could just shift to that. However, if getting into big press NYTIMES, CNN) is considered good for the cause, which PETA attests that it is and I'm willing to hear counter-arguments, then you gotta be silly.

 

I know it works for them, but I think it's over and done with for those kind of campaigns. And, as Tamzz posted here earlier via the deceiver.com link, PETA should be equally concerned with the fact that they'll promote any celebrity who will shill for some attention, even if that person doesn't actually believe in the message.

 

Who, for example? While a lot of celebrities who do shoots aren't vegan, they are doing campaigns like anti-fur which they don't wear. Am I wrong about that?

 

These are the kind of things that are hurting their credibility as being any sort of spokesperson for the movement - it's little wonder why the AR community in general seems to look at PETA as that weird relative that's always getting into bad situations, the one that most hope won't be making it to the family reunion

 

PETA is targeting a mainstream (read: dumb and generally apathetic) audience. The Peter Singers will take care of the people who want logical argument (me!), Carol Adams will reach feminists, other scholars will reach academia, Rory Friedmann or whatever her name is will reach teeny-boppers, and Mike Mahler and the guy who wrote the Engine 2 Diet can reach the 'tough' guys.

 

I don't like PETA's ads and I think they cater to the lowest common denominator sometimes too, but it's because they're trying to make inroads in a culture that also s me.

 

And, as I've said before, I'm really happy to change my mind on this issue. I don't like partnering up with sexist and baiting advertising, but I feel like we're in such a sordid state of affairs that we need to normalize vegetarianism. That means being part of the norm, no matter how gross it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a compassionate, rational, open-minded person the vegan message is, I think, straightforward, simple, and obvious. To the other 97%, it's misplaced emotion or anthropomorphism on the part of touchy-feely hippies. Can't we agree that, PETA or not, most people don't care? I've handed out thousands of leaflets, listened to or given multiple talks, and I feel good if one person at each one has changed their mind.

 

I can certainly agree that most people don't care. However, we need to keep in mind the ratio of exposure for tactics such as what you have done via leafletting and, say, a wacky PETA campaign that gets national exposure. You may only reach a few hundred people in an afternoon of leafletting, and find a few people that are interested. The exposure from a PETA campaign that gets massive national attention (good and bad) will be seen by millions, but what is the actual conversion rate? Requests for additional literature via their site are not a true indicator of real "interest" in making any changes, while it's much easier to gauge actual interest when dealing with someone in the way you would by leafletting. That's not to say that some people don't make the change by seeing PETA's campaigns, but if they were to say "We got 5000 requests for Vegetarian Starter Kits after that campaign", perhaps a few dozen of those people are really interested in making a change. Now, compare time and money spent on the mega-campaign vs. the end result, and it could very well be shocking if we could REALLY see how many people made any change to their lifestyle from the bizarre campaigns that PETA runs.

 

It's the equivalent of my saying "I have 100,000 people on my email list", but that doesn't mean that everyone cares if I send them things. Based on statistics, I get about 10x the number of site visitors to my store vs. the number who make a purchase - just because they're coming to take a look doesn't mean that they're serious about it, be it buying vegan products or requesting literature based on a campaign. You never really know just how much good it's actually doing, as simple stats don't reflect a true sense of accomplishment toward the goal. I could be wrong, maybe more people DO need to see shock value, lowest common denominator stuff to care about anything, but then again, if you gave those same people a copy of Mein Kampf, they might have an equal interest in national socialism as they would veganism via campaigns relying on exploiting sexuality

 

If the strength of an argument on its own were really enough to win people over, we'd live in a much better world. But I would think it's common knowledge that the world doesn't move on good arguments, but on PR, advertising, lobbying, money, greed, and incentive. Personally, I blame capitalism.

 

Which is true, however, playing by the "bad" rules of the game and not working to change things only accomplishes part of the mission, and with concessions. It's sacrificing integrity in order to reach a goal - it's very tempting, but is it really the best way to go, even if it does get more exposure?

 

As both an activist and a journalist I can attest to the fact that your standard animal rights argument won't get much media coverage. You have to bring something new and interesting to the table and then use the 15 minutes to spew your facts/argument real fast. Is that ultimately counter-productive? I don't know, and it's impossible to measure with any precision.

 

I never said that the common methods were necessarily the most effective (if they were, all the other grassroots vegan and AR groups wouldn't be small operations that are struggling to get by). However, I think that a NEW way of doing things that incorporates the good in PETA with the good in how others operate could effectively be a proficient way of getting the message out WITHOUT needing to make us look like we need to stoop low just to get attention. Unfortunately (while simultaneously fortunately), my life revolves around vegan products and being on the sidelines to fuel those out to battle for the cause, which doesn't give me a whole lot of time to spend working on new ways to promote the message as organizations need to.

 

If you can show me a model that works, can be replicated, and takes the same target audience, then I'm game.

 

As noted, my field of expertise lies elsewhere. Someone else will have to be the one to develop a new plan of attack, I suppose

 

I think Vegan Outreach leaflets are a great way to go, for example, but they have limited demographics and niches. If its proven that showing the gruesome videos in public will ultimately do more good, then maybe we could just shift to that. However, if getting into big press NYTIMES, CNN) is considered good for the cause, which PETA attests that it is and I'm willing to hear counter-arguments, then you gotta be silly.

 

Ultimately, my gripe is that much the press gained from the PETA campaigns doesn't focus on the debate over AR or even animal welfare - it's the shock tactics used that take center stage. I've seen so many news clips of PETA reps trying to explain their way around why they use the tactics (often, with minimal mention by the hosts as to WHY these campaigns are even running, rather, they're more concerned over the shock value of it all vs. the sake of the message), and sometimes, I can say I've seen PETA reps fail miserably at getting the point across. The "Save the Whales" billboard issue was a great example of this - the news clip of it was a sad state for the vegan message. The person from PETA being interviewed failed to make any valid points, and the dietitician that they had to debate him proved him and the campaign wrong multiple times (such as, the "you won't be obese if you go meat-free" schtick that is far from true, since I can prove that one wrong by experience ). To me, that whole thing was a black eye - it was insulting to overweight people, was based off of inaccurate information, and the person they set up to go on camera couldn't prove any of the points he was asked to. Essentially, it was a circus for a few minutes, then became utterly forgettable afterward. But, it did piss people off, all without really making a point for the sake of the animals with any real facts behind it.

 

Who, for example? While a lot of celebrities who do shoots aren't vegan, they are doing campaigns like anti-fur which they don't wear. Am I wrong about that?

 

http://deceiver.com/2008/12/17/khloe-kardashian-wears-fur/

 

She posed for one of the famous "Fur? I'd rather go naked" campaigns. As noted in the article, it took a whole week before Khloe was pictured draped in real fur. Boy, do they know how to pick their celebrities for campaigns!

 

That site has a whole log of celebs that shilled for PETA who live lifestyles completely contradictory to what PETA is aiming to accomplish. It's like if I said "I'm going to use Emeril Lagasse to promote my store because he's famous and willing", even thought he isn't vegan, likely will never be vegan, and will go back to cooking meat for famous folk the follow day. THAT to me is downright shameful. I'm still reeling over their promotion of Pamela Anderson for so long - but I've already covered my gripes over her use in campaigns in other threads, and I could rant all day about that sort of thing

 

PETA is targeting a mainstream (read: dumb and generally apathetic) audience. The Peter Singers will take care of the people who want logical argument (me!), Carol Adams will reach feminists, other scholars will reach academia, Rory Friedmann or whatever her name is will reach teeny-boppers, and Mike Mahler and the guy who wrote the Engine 2 Diet can reach the 'tough' guys.

 

No question about who they're targeting. With these kind of press-loving campaigns they run, it's obviously not for those who typically think beyond who they're going to hook up with that night or where they might go for lunch that day. However, I still cling to the notion that we CAN somehow reach people that are looking for the mainstream WITHOUT having to use the same tired and questionable tactics. Take, for example, PETA's presence at events like the Warp Tour - having a strong presence with youth-oriented events where people are open to different ideas is a great place to find those who have interest, and you don't need to have a naked woman in a cage to get attention. There's nothing inherently vegan about the Warp Tour (except maybe some band members that are potentially vegan), but it's a great place to tap into the audience and promote veganism. Things like that I give them lots of credit for - their work to target the teen audience is exceptional in many ways, and they're at the forefront of getting the message out in a "cool" way without bringing shame on anyone for using questionable tactics. There has to be a better way to do that with the "average American" audience, but somehow, things just stay the same.

 

And, as I've said before, I'm really happy to change my mind on this issue. I don't like partnering up with sexist and baiting advertising, but I feel like we're in such a sordid state of affairs that we need to normalize vegetarianism. That means being part of the norm, no matter how gross it is.

 

I agree, being part of the norm will bring more people in, but how far do we go? If someone went up to you and said, "I'll go vegan for a month and save dozens of animals if you eat this steak right now", would it be worth it to you to sacrifice your ideals and dignity for a few minutes for that tradeoff for the "greater good"? Where do we draw the line at stooping down just to be heard? Everyone has their limits - I just feel that we can't lower ourselves too far without doing damage to the movement and seeming like the class clown, always getting into trouble just to get attention. Like I've said here again and again, there's GOT to be a better way - we just have to come up with it and put it into action. The problem is, we just haven't come up with it yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 7 months later...

I used to be a member of PETA, but I keep seeing and hearing about stupid stuff like this. I got tired of the e-mails, and donate here, and sign this, when if you do a little research, PETA is not quite as animal friendly as they are made out to be. Now, if I am wrong I apologize, but that is my opinion from what I have gathered on this website, and a few others. That video is dumb. Forces women to put animals/fur against their skin?? WTF, yeah right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't the nudity within Peta campaigns linked with an intelligent message? Even if the tactic of using nudity is supposed to work, there's no reason why the rest of the campaign has to be dumb / devoid of actual content as well. I think there are other ways to promote veganism that would work. I mean, most things that get promoted successfully on TV don't use nudity really. Sure, some do, but on the whole, there are other things you can say and do. And it wouldn't even have to be just a straight forward "here's why you should be vegan", or an emotional thing. It could be a catchphrase, an iconic image to get people thinking, some very hard hitting figures that stick in your mind, a public figure / celebrity that people trust and respect to share the message... so many ways to advertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what?? I toally agree with you. Look at the list of vegan/vegetarian celebrities. Why don't some of those celebrities do a commercial, some kind of advertisement, instead of being featured in PETA magazines? I agree that something of that nature would be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...