PETA compares racist, homophobic language to phrases like ‘bring home the bacon’

[jolldan]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, better known as PETA, is facing some backlash after the organization took to Twitter to call for the end of “speciesism” on our everyday conversations.

“Just as it became unacceptable to use racist, homophobic, or ableist language, phrases that trivialize cruelty to animals will vanish as more people begin to appreciate animals for who they are and start ‘bringing home the bagels’ instead of the bacon,” read one of the tweets.

PETA talked about the importance of words, noting that language should evolve along with social justice.

"Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it. Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations."

Safe to say twitter is having a fun time roasting them for this one.

 

[Teelie]

I hadn't heard about PETA lately so it's about time they came out with an offensive, publicity grabbing headline to remind everyone they still exist, and still do not really care about animal welfare so much as publicity.

 

[psylockolussus]

Peta, hamming it up again.

 

[Schlosser85]

The same people running some of the most kill-happy shelters in the country are trying to police language. Great priorities.

 

[Lighthouse]

I feel bad for animal rights activists that the most famous organization representing them is an extremest hypocritical joke. There are important animal issues that should have advocacy, but PETA undermines everything they claim to support.

 

[Pink Ranger]

PETA seems to have a beef with everybody. They should stop hot-dogging it with the publicity. We should just get to the meat of the matter. Some of their statements really cut too close to the bone. It's like they don't care how the sausage gets made. This organization deserves to be roasted.

 

[samsnee]

That dog won't hunt

 

[Herofan]

How much has disapproval of "ableist" language succeeded? There has been a longrunning campaign against it and it's had some impact, I'm not sure of how much (probably the most impact on celebrities and universities).

Anyway, PETA is ridiculous especially for complaining of a term like guinea pig and the completely different terms they would want to use as replacements. But both they and a lot of people indifferent to animals are to blame for focusing on them and ignoring other, reasonable animal rights activists and arguments.

 

[terry78]

It's all been run into the ground so I'll just see myself out.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

No one reasonable gives a **** what PETA says. About the only ones that do are those that want to be outraged about them and in spreading their outrage actually give more airtime to PETA.

 

[Teelie]

I feel bad for animal rights activists that the most famous organization representing them is an extremest hypocritical joke. There are important animal issues that should have advocacy, but PETA undermines everything they claim to support.

There are a handful of animal rights/welfare groups I support but PETA never has, never will be one of them.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Er...no, it's not the same. At all.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, better known as PETA, is facing some backlash after the organization took to Twitter to call for the end of “speciesism” on our everyday conversations.

“Just as it became unacceptable to use racist, homophobic, or ableist language, phrases that trivialize cruelty to animals will vanish as more people begin to appreciate animals for who they are and start ‘bringing home the bagels’ instead of the bacon,” read one of the tweets.

PETA talked about the importance of words, noting that language should evolve along with social justice.

"Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it. Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations."

Safe to say twitter is having a fun time roasting them for this one.

This is just utterly ridiculous.

I’m ashamed to be quoting it...

 

[CaptainWagner]

I feel bad for animal rights activists that the most famous organization representing them is an extremest hypocritical joke. There are important animal issues that should have advocacy, but PETA undermines everything they claim to support.

Exactly. The legitimate organizations all get overshadowed by nonsense like this. It happens all the time these days, whether with religious groups or even political parties. The absurd and the awful get all the attention instead of the people actually trying to live out their beliefs and make the world a better place.

 

[Marvolo]

Ignore those dip****s at PETA. While they're whining about something stupid and running kill shelters, there are other organizations out there trying to actually help unfortunate animals. For example:

Animal Aid Unlimited, India

 

[terry78]

When you care more about animals or compare them to humans, that's when I have to raise an eyebrow regarding your sanity. If it comes down to saving me or saving a dog and you pick the dog, **** off.

 

[Schlosser85]

When you care more about animals or compare them to humans, that's when I have to raise an eyebrow regarding your sanity.

PETA doesn't care about animals. They care about publicity. They run some of the most kill-happy animal shelters in the country.

 

[Greens]

Idiots.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

PETA seems to have a beef with everybody. They should stop hot-dogging it with the publicity. We should just get to the meat of the matter. Some of their statements really cut too close to the bone. It's like they don't care how the sausage gets made. This organization deserves to be roasted.

There needs to be a 1000 x Like button for this post...

 

[Arachnerd]

PETA is still relevant?

 

[Teelie]

PETA is still relevant?

Only in that the media keeps giving them attention for their outrageous comments that are solely meant to get media attention. In every other way they are irrelevant.

 

[AResistor]

PETA is to animal rights, what the NRA is to gun rights. NRA is much worse, obviously. But, both organizations seem to get a kick out of being as extreme as they possibly can be.

 

[Robert_Anthony]

Especially when PETA KILLS MORE ANIMALS than they claim to adopt. See here for the facts.

Also...
"Why does PETA kill cats and dogs by the thousands instead of finding them homes? Simply, PETA does not believe in pet ownership. Ingrid Newkirk has called pet ownership “an abysmal situation.” She further elaborated on her goal for destroying the human-pet bond: 'If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.'

'In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether,' she has said."

 

[Dark Raven]

If you say "Take the flower by the thorns" then isn't that using anti-flower language?

Also, their suggestions are a bit nonsensical. The idea of taking the bull by the horns is to deal with something difficult directly. However, the reason you take it by the horns is to prevent it from hurting or charging you so they can't use their horns against you as a weapon. By grabbing the horns, you're controlling how the bull uses them. So it's almost that you're circumventing the idea of simply facing it head on.

If you take the flower by the thorns, that doesn't mean the same thing as the original sense. In fact, it results in the exact opposite effect, because if you take it by the thorns it will hurt you whereas if you take it by the flower or part of the stem without thorns, it won't.

And "be the test tube" doesn't mean the same thing either, because you're not exactly experimenting on a test tube like you might with a guinea pig or lab rat.

 

[Marvolo]

Especially when PETA KILLS MORE ANIMALS than they claim to adopt. See here for the facts.

Also...
"Why does PETA kill cats and dogs by the thousands instead of finding them homes? Simply, PETA does not believe in pet ownership. Ingrid Newkirk has called pet ownership “an abysmal situation.” She further elaborated on her goal for destroying the human-pet bond: 'If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.'

'In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether,' she has said."

In the end I think itd be lovely if they'd **** off to some lifeless island and leave sensible society and animals alone.

And I wonder if that fool realizes or understands that wolves and domesticated dogs and cats are thought to be partly responsible for the evolution and development and success of human civilization? Cats kept mice and pests out of grain and other food supplies, and dogs/wolves removed scraps of food, pests, and protected humans from other predatory animals. In return humans offered protection, shelter, and food to them. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement.