Gizmodo Article on PETA’s ‘Insensitive Advertising’
Well, it’s not the first time their ads have pissed people off and it’s definitely not the last. My boyfriend put this fucking article on my Facebook and I just had to talk about it.
Not sure if you guys have heard, and if you haven’t click through to the article which will give you the basic summary, but this guy Wickersham was bitten by a shark while fishing with his friends. My first question is how the fuck he managed that. You’re sort of in a boat for a reason, so I’m lead to believe he was being a fuck. I chased the story to a legitimate news source: he said he was spear fishing several miles off the coast and was bitten in the thigh. If you were spearfishing, weren’t you paying attention to the water? Wouldn’t you have seen a shark? And once sharks get hold of you, don’t they hang the fuck on?
Anyway, this horribly written Gizmodo article (no really, this person needs a copyeditor, it’s fucking embarrassing) is bitching because PETA’s using this guy’s injury as a marketing tool. Okay, PETA, didn’t you learn your lesson with the Holocaust stunt you pulled? No? Well, I don’t think they ever will if they’re not concerned about that.
But you know what, reading this article, do I think that’s okay advertising? Yeah, sorta do. In comparison to their other advertisements this is pretty fucking tame. People are bent out of shape because they’re using the example of a guy who was doing something he shouldn’t have and got hurt - and will be fine. Parents use kids as examples when they fuck up all the time - ‘Oh, you were pulling that cat’s tail so it scratched you? Probably shouldn’t do that.’
Oh, you’re psychologically torturing fish, causing them immense anxiety and pain, for sport or food you do not need and got bitten by a shark? Interesting. Probably shouldn’t fucking do that.
Is the ad taboo? Yeah, definitely, and it won’t be well-receiving and PETA’s marketing should probably wise the fuck up and stop using human tragedies and suffering as a means of comparison, because, guess what - ‘normal’ humans don’t give a fuck about animal suffering and don’t equate it to humans. Scare tactics don’t WORK on people, they just make them more indignant and defensive of their ways. A few weeks ago there were pro-life fucks out on my campus with huge 3’x3’ signs with color photos of ‘aborted fetuses’ (which were mostly still-borns, good job guys) and all it did was gross us out and enrage us. We’re Emerson goddamn College, and we’re all pro-choice. And we all also know that aborted fetuses are not that big - that’s a marketing tool used to scare, and it’s insulting and unnecessary. They were right on the Common with bloody photographs - kids walk by there all day, every day.
PETA should be focusing instead on the health aspects and the cruelty, and that’s all- there’s SO MANY positive things to say about that, like Forks Over Knives does!
Basically what I’m getting at is the ignorance of this writer, who even goes so far as to link to the ORIGINAL article bitching about PETA being insensitive (they’re not even his/her thoughts! This is so pathetic!) MAKES me want to defend PETA, whom I hate. And the “I’m all for animal rights guys!” at the bottom is so fucking trite - seriously, you still think it’s alright to fish, but you dig animal rights? Sounds awfully nice for speciesist bullshit. Thoughts?