That's a good point. Yeah, I think part of that perception is that many people have trouble accepting the idea that animals actually feel pain and have personalities...
Funny how it works. People who love dogs ascribe human qualities to them that I doubt they even have. But cows? Off to the bolt gun.
If we just automatically label these people as crazy we don't have to change anything!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYsWell Reapsta, if that is your real name
Getting a bit personal!
I see it differently. If the concern is that by being so fundamentally crazy PETA tarnishes the cause they support, I think it might actually have the opposite effect. People might be inclined to give an argument a fairer shake because they know its advocate is fucking retarded. Or, at the very least, not hold its originator against it. Do you really see people saying "well, if PETA is for it I shouldn't even bother paying any attention?" I don't.
Spite's a powerful motivator though. A normal person who sees PETA activists naked in human sized steak containers will probably think, "look at these weirdos. There's nothing wrong with how I go to the grocery store and buy a piece of steak." And I know I'm not the only person who likes eating meat and considers PETA's stuff so absurd that you feel like you have to eat more meat to counteract it.
This seems to me the way things have played out over the years. A whole lot more people care about animal welfare now than used to, and most of them are people that will tell you in no uncertain terms that they don't want to be associated with those crazy fucks...
...those ag-gag laws are bullshit. I think we might have started those down here after an expose at a chicken plant.
I think the expose stuff has done more than anything else. PETA's chicken holocaust campaign belittles profound human tragedy to score political points. But, go to Youtube and, if you can stomach it, watch what happens to male baby chickens. Youtube doesn't charge you, but you still pay with part of your soul.
There's also an opposite action in play. Forms of protest rightly considered crazy actually do have a positive effect. When some asshole throws paint at somebody wearing a fur, we call for them to be shot dead in the street like the sorry bastards they are. Fuck those people. Yet years later we're more conscious of the fur and leather we wear and accordingly use less of it.
I did some Googling here to confirm what I was thinking, but it seems like the decline of fur is just as much related to better quality faux fur as well as it gaining the association of being a luxury item (but in a bad way, where you look ostentatious if you wear it). It looks like PETA does a lot to pressure companies against it, but that seems more like businesses making the classic mistake of thinking their loudest detractors represent their customer base.
The idea of animal welfare has been introduced to the collective consciousness. That it came form some asshole vandal, or a group of whackjobs doesn't really matter once the idea begins to settle. Like all societal change it's very slow to happen, but it does happen. And for the people who don't change their thoughts on the process, do you think they're more likely to reconsider if the idea comes from Professor Schopenhauer of the Royal Academy of Complicated Shit? People set in their ways don't care about the messenger any more than they do the message.
Schopenhauer? Definitely not. A good example though of a better (I think) way to do it is the push for criminal justice reform. Lots of good documentaries and exposes are out there on how it's essentially a meat grinder for those unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this the First Step Act might actually become a law.
Good to see you around. Been too long.
You as well. It's good to be back.