Exclusively for zoos.media – 17.07.2023. Author: Philipp J. Kroiß
PETA is known for platitudes. However, the radical animal rights organisation reacts very sensitively to scrutiny of its own platitudes.
Twitter: PETA make a fool of themselves
Tweets should be kept short and sweet. That is why PETA probably thought that they ought to start tweeting all the hollow phrases that are part of the organisation’s typical parade of platitudes. It seems they did not factor in the Twitter account “greg”, who challenged the logic behind one of their tweets:
How come fish can eat other fish but we can’t eat fish
— greg (@greg16676935420) July 2, 2023
An absurd platitude
PETA had claimed that: “A fish’s life is just as valuable to them as yours is to you.” This little phrase only sounds good until you remember that fish do indeed eat fish. Therefore, “greg” posed the rhetorical question of why fish were allowed to eat other fish but humans were not, if the lives of others were just as important to fish as they are to us. After all, it is forbidden for humans to eat other humans.
This was but the prelude to a series of comments on similar platitudes tweeted by PETA. Yet the radical animal rights organisation did not respond with arguments; apparently, PETA had nothing to counter this with. You would expect PETA employees, who receive relatively high salaries from donation money, to tweet back an at least somewhat intelligent retaliation.
How it started: How it’s going: pic.twitter.com/inooEvl49w
— greg (@greg16676935420) July 3, 2023
Elon Musk weighs in
This move by PETA landed on the account “Internet Hall of Shame” and did not remain unnoticed by Elon Musk, who has owned Twitter for the past year. He tweeted about it:
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 16, 2023
“Greg” wrote in the comments that he never got an answer to his question. At least PETA responded to Musk’s tweet, albeit not content-related. In its answer, PETA brooded over the issue that apparently the same arguments are repeated over and over and that “compassion” isn’t a difficult concept to understand. For fish, however, it apparently is, and that is what prompted the original question. PETA seems to want to hide behind its platitudes that they have not understood the root of the matter.
Parade of platitudes with a clear intent
These “soft” and presumed “aphorisms” about compassion and the romanticising humanisation of animals always serve a plan. The aim of these phrases, which are so easy to just nod off on social media, is to make people’s first contact with the radical animal rights organisation pleasant. Similar to a cult, the more radical and harsher things come later and more hesitantly. If PETA’s self-promotion were sincere, it would look very different:
Interestingly enough, you will not find the truly interesting quotes by PETA employees, that unmask the radical agenda, as tweets. However, we have summarized them in this video:
PETA is not really honest on Twitter either. If somebody draws attention to this, they get blocked.
