Author Topic: Really, PETA?  (Read 3343 times)

Brotep

  • Back like a bad rash.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11091
  • before Hoteps, except after "C"
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2009, 10:11:25 am »
furfags lol

Lies

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 24575
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2009, 10:28:18 am »
- So the New World Order does not actually exist?
- Oh it exists, and how!
Ask the slaves whose labour built the White House;
Ask the slaves of today tied down to sweatshops and brothels to escape hunger;
Ask most women, second class citizens, in a pervasive rape culture;
Ask the non-human creatures who inhabit the planet:
whales, bears, frogs, tuna, bees, slaughtered farm animals;
Ask the natives of the Americas and Australia on whose land
you live today, on whose graves your factories, farms and neighbourhoods stand;
ask any of them this, ask them if the New World Order is true;
they'll tell you plainly: the New World Order… is you!

rong

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15386
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2009, 10:44:28 am »
if god didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
"he was a smart feller who felt smart"

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130593
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2009, 02:34:10 pm »
thing about the blog name is,

it's clearly working.

we all clicked it, no?


no different than sending those models to walk around NYC in lettuce bikinis. It's just trying to grab eyeballs for the Mission.

Pariah

  • Werewolf
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 25779
  • Circle Jerk Sexcrime Investigator of the Blatherne
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2009, 03:46:34 pm »
Not all attention is good attention.
Play safe! Ski only in a clockwise direction! Let's all have fun together!

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130593
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2009, 03:48:34 pm »
did you click the link?

did you talk about their blog or direct people to it?


that's good attention

Idem

  • Adorable Lesbian
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 14655
    • View Profile
    • Kitschstortion
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2009, 03:52:54 pm »
Attention which turns/reveals the supposedly serious into the comedic is not certainly not, by definition, good attention.  Unless the comedic aspect is intentionally put forward, which is arguably the case for anything we push.

I thought this was one of the primary tenants of Discordianism in media.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 03:55:37 pm by Idem »

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130593
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2009, 03:56:25 pm »
I believe the reaction that we had here was the intended effect

spreading the message, even to satirize it, serves the message's survival.


I'm not saying that we shouldn't have talked about it--
I'm saying that it was actually a very well chosen name.


check out all the forum activity about it: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22peta%20files%22&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&output=search&tbs=frm:1&tbo=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&tbo=1&tbs=frm%3A1&q=blog.peta.org&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2009, 04:07:16 pm »
It depends on PETA's goals.  If PETA's goal is to work the margins, which I imagine it is, then it could be effective.  In other words, if the message sinks in with 5 out of 100, or even 5 out of 1000, it might be viewed as a success. 

It works the same way in my field.  You want to find a message that is memorable, and that will actually sink in with somebody, even if it is only a few somebodies. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2009, 04:12:45 pm »
It depends on PETA's goals.  If PETA's goal is to work the margins, which I imagine it is, then it could be effective.  In other words, if the message sinks in with 5 out of 100, or even 5 out of 1000, it might be viewed as a success. 

It works the same way in my field.  You want to find a message that is memorable, and that will actually sink in with somebody, even if it is only a few somebodies. 

This was my thinking as well--capitalizing on something that's somewhat viral in order to garner more support, not just attention.  It's just always good to be suspicious of why such a "mistake" was made...even if the attention they get for it is mainly negative.

Cain

  • Alea iacta est
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 105034
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2009, 04:19:45 pm »
PETA's intentions are to rile up their own base of support with the pretence of being "attacked" by the evil meat eating, animal hating masses, so they can press them for more cash.

Only this and nothing more.

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 130593
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2009, 04:20:54 pm »
according to google, the words "peta files" or a link to the blog have appeared on about 90 forums in the last 24 hours alone.

I'd wager their blog's goal is to raise awareness about their various causes. Even if you went to their blog to laugh at the title, you also saw their most recent post.

It really is very clever memetics:

The blog is smooth, (very easy to spread the message - it's just a link)
contageous, (it's an interesting thing to bring up in conversation)
and targets the promiscuous sneezers (who look cool by pointing out Peta's fail)

the contraversy surrounding the name springboards them into hives that would have never otherwise mentioned them. Pedophiles evoke emotions (like moral outrage) which they wish you to be feeling (perhaps preconsciously) when you read their blog entries.


Jenne

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 79228
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2009, 04:34:14 pm »
Still and all...the desperation that drives them to ally themselves with pedofiles is just beyond horrormirthic proportions.

Captain Utopia

  • Social Justice Warrior
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 32643
  • Futurologue de Prétention
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2009, 04:43:08 pm »
Still and all...the desperation that drives them to ally themselves with pedofiles is just beyond horrormirthic proportions.
Plausible deniability.

Until the 'Cramulus Advanced Memetic Dissemination Toolbar' for Firefox comes out, people will keep pulling shit like this because they can just claim it to be an accident. BUT we are slowly building the tools required to combat it. Of course, then the basterds will develop new tricks and tools, but I'm sure that'll keep them stumped for a little while.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Really, PETA?
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2009, 05:30:19 pm »


The thing about PETA trying to turn kids against their parents is, EFO stumbled across them on the internet and was, briefly, both traumatised and sympathetic. She asked me about them and I explained that they use shock and horror to try to gain followers, but that they are a hypocritical fundraising corporation which slaughters thousands of animals. She now hates them as much as I do. Kids will listen to their mommies before some random corporation, so trying to turn them against their parents is a fail strategy.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”