There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Smirk

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Smirk ,

As expected, crickets. X

Smirk , (edited )

This @pintdrunkenelephant guy’s a reactionary dog with a bone they can’t let go of. An antagonist and contrarian, the antithesis of what they preach, unable to see the big picture, and nothing will ever be good enough for them till the world burns. I wouldn’t bother mate.

Smirk ,

Let’s take the thought a step further and ask; who’s existence wouldn’t prevent the meaningful enforcement of the law?

IMO police, or something to that nature, are pretty necessary in today’s society, but the boundaries they have, are stepped over time and time again, without the proper repercussions.

What’s your take?

Smirk , (edited )

Well then, here we go…

These stupid fucking liberals have no plan for what to do after the police are removed

I have no idea what the outcome would be, I’m pretty new to this line of thinking so I thought if I ask someone I might get an answer I can move forward with. But what is the plan? Again, genuinely asking because I want to learn.

So let’s ask them what do we do afterward?

Well yeah, what else do I do if I want to engage and learn?

Then we either deconstruct every answer they provide or call them out on having no answer

I promise you, I couldn’t begin to deconstruct any answer, because this is literally the first time I’ve engaged in this line of thinking. I’m from the UK, haven’t had the best experience with police myself, and due to some inherent distrust of self proclaimed authority without boundaries, it’s in my interest to be aware of the options for the future.

Then disingenuously dismiss the idea of getting rid of police as ill thought out and immature when we never had any intention of conceding the point to begin with, because we want police to continue subjugating and abusing people, because we are bigots

I’ve not got a point to concede, it’s completely my opinion, based on my knowledge of current society that we need them for some sort of order.

The only answer I can give you here is I read Aldous Huxley:The island when I was younger, and it shaped the way I think to some degree. As idyllic an idea he portrays, the island Pala, I’ve been living in accordance with the principles he writes about, and leading by example. It’s caused me mental anguish for 2 decades that humanity is moving in the opposite direction, been called a dreamer and utopian thinker by some friends I’ve grown up with, and since distanced myself from them, cultivating friends and connections that can see the potential of humanity. I’ve identified how much of the world is wrapped up in a selfish attitude towards their own life, and I’ve felt like I’m fighting a losing battle for 20+ years, I’m an absolute wreck because of it, my life is in shambles because I’m let down again and again, day after day, year after year, decade after decade.

Because their justification for having police is:

My justification for having police is based on my life having police in it, nothing more. I’m saying here that I want the world aldous writes about, regarding Pala. I’ve been striving for it, but every sign has shit on my thought that we COULD have that world, and I’m a mental breakdown machine because the reality is a select few have propagated the idea that selfishness is king, and the rest of humanity is on board. I will say I do believe certain institutions are beneficial, such as education, healthcare, scientific institutions (so that we better understand the universe we find ourselves in). But I’m a complete noob when it comes to talking about this, so I could be missing the mark, I don’t KNOW. Its just my opinion.

And ignoring the fact that bootlickers like him are deeply insulting the intelligence of everyone else in the discussion and this clown is clearly NOT being nice at all because he’s advocating for your brutal subjugation under the jackboot of sadistic racists that only want to bully, abuse, rape and murder you, other individuals have already answered the question effectively, so why am I going to entertain scum like him?

I’m sorry if I insulted yours and everyone else’s intelligence by asking, but even now, I’m not looking for a fight in this. I was trying to be diplomatic in my question, if not overly open to learning about it, and with my lack of knowledge in this area I’ve clearly engaged in the wrong way. Whether it be the way I asked, or if I may say, you’ve encountered so many disingenuous people regarding this, which I can believe, you aren’t used to people being genuine. I really don’t mean to offend in saying that. I’m vegan (how do you know someone’s vegan? meme on me idc) and I’ve sometimes found myself being reactionary to genuine questions about “plant feel pain” etc, that I’ve initially disregarded people, before they’ve told me they read it somewhere and they don’t really know what to believe, and so are asking for my take.

If you can point me to other individuals that have answered effectively, I’ll read and read and read before I engage again. You’ve written me off as scum, but I’ve not written you off, because I’m not that guy. I’m not the guy to read what you put and take offense, or want to push back, or ignore your harsh words, however incorrect, and further an agenda opposing yours. I’m more than likely that one guy, in a sea of selfish fucks you’ve encountered, that is just trying to learn about how we can get to Pala.

How about instead of wasting our time sealioning to push a line of reasoning designed to manipulate our fears and put down our self esteem and self worth in order to convince us to accept an obviously failed institution that causes nothing but harm and abuses us in horrific ways, you take your fake attitude and go fuck yourself with it?

I’ve not designed anything, it was pure sincerity. I’m not trying to manipulate you. On that note, I read Richard Dawkins:the selfish gene at 13 years old. My first job at 15 was in retail In a high end department store. I was trained to sell stuff, up-sell everything I could, and make some already rich fuck even more money, while I was grafting my ass off for ~£3.50 an hour (2005) I came across the concept of social engineering around the same time and realised I had a choice, I can socially engineer people to benefit me, or socially engineer people to benefit themselves. And as a dumb af 16 year old, I related it back to the selfish gene. Selfishness, or altruism. I have a choice, and chose altruism. That’s the only manipulation I do (I’m a human living in this world, so I’m not perfect)

I grew up in a good home, with a mother that I can honestly say, in my hyperbolic opinion, is love incarnate. She poured so much love into me that when I grew up and started to think for myself, I realised I’m so fucking alone in this fight that I have to be the example and give that love back to whoever I can, and whoever needs it. I’ve been fucked over and over for giving pieces of myself to bring other people up, just to be abandoned by the same people, that I’m a shell of a human, still trying to get to Pala.

I’m sorry for the essay, I didn’t expect to be writing all this. You call out my “fake attitude” and said “go fuck yourself with it”. There’s no need, because the world had fucked me for 2 decades now, because of my real attitude.

I hope you respond with an answer to my initial question, or at the very least, check your assumptions.

If you’re reaction to reading all this is “he can’t be serious, no one is like this, he must be talking the biggest amount of bullshit to save face”

I am serious. I am like this. Because if I give up now, I might as well top myself.

Peace.

Edit: I’ll give you a day to reply. If you don’t, I’ll give my opinion on you, because that’s all you have. An opinion. Based on speculation from past experiences in your life, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when that same grace wasn’t offered me. And your opinion is very misguided.

Smirk ,

So, here we are.

You said your piece, and it turns out you’re completely wrong in your assumptions, and instead of addressing that fact, and re-engageing me, you’ve ignored what I replied with. You stroked your ego initially by not engaging with me and addressing every one else in the thread, in a very shallow way I might add, but I do wonder how your ego is doing now? This is a potential learning point for you, but only you can decide to become better than the person you were a few days ago. I do hope.

Maybe you’ve just learnt the term sealioning, and it’s your word of the week. You might carry on lambasting people based on your misguided interpretations, but I have hope you’ll one day think critically about this interaction, and move forward with a new understanding.

I’ll go out on a limb and assume you’re American, young, and just immature and naive enough to think you have all the answers, which from my experience leaves you an “all or nothing” attitude, and so everything is a fight for you.

Unable to see nuance in conversation, especially over the Internet where context is very easily mistaken, I’ll give you some friendly, human to human advice; sometimes people just want to learn, and not everything is a fight you have to take.

Based on the aggressive tone of your comment, seeing a legitimate question as a perceived slight at best, you might already be set in your ways.

To put it bluntly, you saw that you should gatekeep a learning moment for someone else, probably more or less on your side, trying to understand the nuance of the conversation.

I read something on here that makes a lot of sense to me, and so I’ll repeat it here. The America DEI mentality is anything but inclusive, and is very confrontational to the point of working against what it’s supposed to defend.

I recommend you read Aldous Huxleys:The island, and try to understand that compassion, not baseless vitriol, is the way we progress as a species.

If you take anything away from this, coming from someone far further along the left leaning path you’re quite clearly on, to me you’re just as bad as the people you vilify, such as the police in America. Your reaction without due cause is just as bad as theirs, thankfully you haven’t nearly the power or influence they have, and if you are truly are as liberal as you think you are, I believe you’re at least on the right path, even if your delivery and methods are synonymous with the right.

I wish you the best for the future.

Yours sincerely, the biggest advocate for a true functional utopia you’ll ever have the pleasure of interacting with, online or in person.

Peace.

Smirk , (edited )

Hanlon’s razor my friend. Till more evidence, they’re just fucking idiots.

Edit: I reserved judgement, but after further reading, signs are pointing to sabotage, still, not conclusive.

Smirk ,

Aside from this, you out the loop a lot?

Smirk ,

You have a strange idea of what “the loop” is.

And you have no idea, keep up.

Just say “all the time” if your memory is that bad mate.

Smirk ,

It’s literally 30 seconds out my day, if it’s that hard to take, I think it’s pretty obvious it’s your issue here.

But by all means, keep everyone who’s shit on you in this thread, carry them round in your head, eating away at your psyche.

Jfc recognise when to bow out you clown lol.

Smirk ,

Enjoy is a choice word, but you betrayed yourself when you said this “Ah yes Vine, definitely a relevant thing in 2023 that everyone references. Thanks for reminding me that Vine existed, I had actually forgotten.”

Everything you’ve received, you invited, and continue to do so.

But go ahead, keep us up there, popping into your thoughts when you think you’re happy, just to tell you this:

You missed a joke/reference, then got pissy. If this back and forth in this thread has caused you any turmoil, I’m sorry, but that’s completely on you mate.

It’s up to you to recognise that.

Take care bro, seems you have bigger problems than us.

X

Smirk ,

You replied to the wrong comment, and I reread what I put, nowhere did I say I enjoy causing pain to others, I’d advise you reread it…

Enjoy is a choice word, but you betrayed yourself when you said this “Ah yes Vine, definitely a relevant thing in 2023 that everyone references. Thanks for reminding me that Vine existed, I had actually forgotten.”

Everything you’ve received, you invited, and continue to do so.

But go ahead, keep us up there, popping into your thoughts when you think you’re happy, just to tell you this:

You missed a joke/reference, then got pissy. If this back and forth in this thread has caused you any turmoil, I’m sorry, but that’s completely on you mate.

It’s up to you to recognise that.

Take care bro, seems you have bigger problems than us.

X

Smirk ,

Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is a toxic troll. Look under your own shoe bro lol.

Smirk ,

Hmm I was 27 years a meat eater, advocating for meat consumption in the face of a vegan mate. Saying thi gs like “we need a little bit of meat in our diets…they’re killed humanely…etc”

Took me one moment of realisation, then I dunno, I just tried, not even that hard, vegan 7 years now.

I can see that the transitional foods are a good stepping stone, but imo, the second you see inside the animal agriculture industry without any blinders on, you’ll choose to act within your life, if you have the compassion/empathy to.

If someone sees the reality of what goes on behind closed doors and continues to consume meat in much the same way, it says more about that persons internal morality than anything else.

Smirk ,

They’re a case study in antivegan rhetoric, don’t worry about them.

Smirk ,

You’re fine to believe all that, it just comes across as though you’re assuming everyone who eats meat has done the due diligence in finding out what happens behind closed doors. That’s not the case, and it’s too obvious you’re wrapped up in your own views to ever change based on what one guy tells you on the Internet. You have to do the work yourself, but only if you want to, which by now, you can’t.

Which is OK, people who care are putting in the work, and the world will be better for it.

I hope you find compassion one day, because I’m certainly not telling you why you should be.

Smirk , (edited )

True, actions speak. So I do what I can. You probably don’t but that’s an assumption I admit.

You’ve got a lot of assumptions, but that’s OK. Like people choosing to eat meat. I don’t think that, as I say, you’re fine to believe the assumptions you make are fact. Even if they’re anecdotal. Like people don’t need to be educated. I disagree. And it’s proven by the rhetoric used in discussing PETA.

Your “most vegans” argument is moot when as a vegan, the discussions surrounding rewilding are far more common than your slice of a piece of what I’ve talked about with them. As I reinstate, it’s simply anti vegan rhetoric that you’re so on board with, your world view is rocked, and can’t see the forest from the trees.

For clarity, I don’t think you’re an idiot or uneducated, just misguided and have been misinformed for so long, your very core is against the idea, and you’re smart enough to justify why you feel like that.

At the end of the day, you are against veganism, that’s cool imo, but I do hope one day people like yourself can see the fight against oppression doesn’t stop at humans.

Smirk , (edited )

Whatever beef… you have with veganism, I don’t need to combat you. There are people that do know the middle way, and live it as much as possible, without needing to be taught. And there are people who will find it and learn from it. You may be one of them, but the energy you put into this back and forth isn’t worth the time, honestly.

You should REALLY write a book, because there is nothing but anguish on your part to gain while messaging me, just as I realised there was nothing more to say 3 weeks ago. It’s quite a shame you haven’t noticed I checked out a while ago upon catching your anecdotal rhetoric, what if I just don’t believe you, you’ve given no evidence to support your claims, and they’re BOLD claims.

I’ve felt no need to explain myself, and if you feel morally inferior, that’s on you. I’m not morally superior, but I strive to be better than I was. There’s the difference.

I wish you the best in your life, even while contributing to unnecessary suffering while using a fantastic brain to justify it.

Smirk ,

It’s not meant for you. I can assume it’s meant for people whom it does bother, and also don’t know.

Smirk ,

Fail mate, go watch any number of exposé’s.

Chalked it up to “horrific soundbytes” lmao, got your head buried in the sand pal.

Miss me with your lack of compassion.

Smirk ,

You said it yourself, but yeah you do misunderstand.

Like I said it’s not meant for people like you. It’s meant for people who I don’t need to convince that what we unnecessarily do is wrong, you’ll feel it if you have the empathy, and that’s entirely on you and your morality bro.

The people this will reach and make think, will tell people what needs to be done, and even when they know, and don’t want to do it because irrelevant reasons, they STILL do what needs to be done, because compassion.

If you don’t get it, it’s OK! It’s not meant to “be got” by you.

Take care, try be better bro x

Smirk ,

At this point I think you’re either an anti vegan bot/troll, an animal agriculture shill, or just someone so enraptured in the decision they’ve made, before ever really thinking, that I genuinely feel sorry about what got you to this point.

You’d made your mind up ages ago, yet you’re still looking for my attention… So yeah, either bot/troll, shill, or dogmatic to the point you’re blind to how you come across.

Peace.

Smirk ,

…because I’m accusing you of speaking incoherently?

If that’s what you believe, that’s OK.

Instead of just insulting me, why don’t you try harder to explain what you mean?

Sorry if you feel I insulted you…? You’re trying to have a debate here, I’m not. That’s it. Get over it, move on with your life. Or keep me in your head rent free idm. If you can’t read between the lines, and see the bigger picture, there are future vegans that will see, and then act, as I did.

Whatever your goal, you either know what you’re doing, or don’t, isn’t my concern, and it’s apparant from the off that your anti vegan stance comes before anything worth responding to. That’s why my engagement with you is low. Others will see through it (intended or not).

If you need to feel the thrill of a win, here you go.

You’d actually make a brilliant case study on anti vegan rhetoric ngl.

Here’s my disengagement kiss. X

Smirk , (edited )

You’ll just never know. Others will. Move on. Be better X

Smirk ,

But what good is worrying?

Become vegan and actually act.

Smirk ,

I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don’t need to.

What you’ve amounted to saying is “if the world can’t be 100% vegan, why try?”

Let’s try this then-

Me: “respect women”

Misogynist: “You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.

I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?”

Or this one’s good-

Me: “don’t be racist”

Racist: “You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?

Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.

I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?”

If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you’re saying, what do you think their response would be?

And similarly, what would MLK say to you?

No, before you call out my comparison, I’m not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I’m comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it’s awfully similar.

In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.

People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.

Smirk ,

It’s OK. Your veiled attempt at good faith discussion is textbook, so was expected.

It’s not my goal to make YOU individually vegan. Others can read and evaluate my reasoning, and by extension, the lack of yours.

Smirk ,

And you still support animal abuse when you don’t have to.

Take care, and try and lead a better life mate.

Smirk ,

Nothing of value to add?

Peace.

Smirk ,

Seems like a fair assessment, even if it’s unprovable. Not a bad heuristic to assume things get adopted from the biggest show to have ever aired.

You got a counter claim?

Smirk ,

Not bad, both easily plausible. Next time you disagree, offer a civil counterclaim and it’s more likely to go down well.

How hard was that?

Smirk ,

“But then you wouldn’t get all worked up about it”

READ: “You’re right”

Take care mate, it’s only a post. Peace

Smirk ,

Why’d you think PETA are awful?

Smirk , (edited )

Just in case the textbook anti-PETA rhetoric comes into the thread…

This is why people hate PETA.

Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.

Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:

Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That’s just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and “news articles” as well, so it’s not always very obvious.

They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:

PETA and their kill-shelters:

PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.

The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):

A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html

The monkey selfie:

The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.

PETA equating milk to racism:

White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.

Final thoughts (I promise):

PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.

Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.

Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.

The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.

For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.

Info continued here if anyone is interested… sh.itjust.works/comment/2252698

Then… sh.itjust.works/comment/2252784

Then… sh.itjust.works/comment/2252805

Smirk ,

What’s your issue with the info I posted?

Smirk ,

The thing people misunderstand is PETA isn’t a monolith, there are always going to be outliers that the media can hold up as an example of why people shouldn’t support them.

Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.

it might be against Reddit blind circle jerks but PETA has done heck a lot to fight against animal cruelty and they are extremely effective at passing legislations Here are just few examples.

1980’s

PETA’s first undercover investigation resulted in an end to crippling experiments on monkeys, the first-ever police raid on an animal-testing laboratory, the first animal experimentation case ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the first-ever prosecution and conviction of an animal experimenter on cruelty-to-animals charges. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys

A PETA undercover investigation results in the first conviction of an experimenter for animal abuse and the first withdrawal of federal research funds because of cruelty to animals.

PETA exposed and shut down the U.S. Army’s plan to shoot dogs at an indoor firing range, leading the military to ban the use of dogs, cats, and primates in wound experiments and training.

1983

PETA gets a U.S. Department of Defense underground “wound lab” shut down and achieves a permanent ban on shooting dogs and cats in military wound laboratories.

1984

PETA closes down a Texas slaughterhouse operation in which 30,000 horses were trucked in and left to starve in frozen fields without shelter.

1985

After PETA publicizes the gross mistreatment of animals at City of Hope in California, the government suspends more than $1 million of the laboratory’s federal funding.

1986

As a result of PETA’s campaign, the SEMA research laboratory in Maryland stops confining chimpanzees to isolation chambers.

1987

PETA stops a plan by Cedars-Sinai, California’s largest hospital, to ship stray dogs from Mexico to California for experiments.

1988

For the first time, PETA conducts a year-long undercover investigation at Biosearch, a cosmetics and household product testing laboratory, uncovering more than 100 violations of federal and state anti-cruelty laws.

1988

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk addresses some of the 35,000 people attending PETA’s Animal Rights Music Festival at the Washington Monument on June 11, 1988. It’s a breakthrough event that puts PETA on the pop-culture radar screen, with extensive coverage on MTV, thanks to headliners The B-52s, Natalie Merchant, and Howard Jones.

1989

PETA persuades Avon, Benetton, Mary Kay, Amway, Kenner, Mattel, and Hasbro to stop testing on animals. Note: Many of these companies have started testing on animals again in order to sell their products in China.

1990

After PETA exposes the backstage beating of orangutans by Las Vegas entertainer Bobby Berosini, his wildlife permit is suspended and his show closes.

1990

PETA’s first sensational vegetarian commercial is “Meat Stinks” with Grammy winner k.d. lang in July 1990. The spot gets her banned on country radio networks but draws such massive coverage that her album goes gold! Her gold record still adorns the walls of the Sam Simon Center, PETA’s Virginia headquarters.

1991

PETA’s “Silver Spring monkeys” case marks the first animal experimentation case ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.The court gives a unanimous, positive ruling

1992

PETA’s undercover investigation into foie gras production prompts the first-ever police raid on a factory farm. PETA convinces many restaurants to stop selling the vile product.

1992

PETA’s “Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign is launched on the streets of Tokyo outside a Japanese fur expo on February 18, 1992. Led by PETA staff member Dan Mathews and Julia Sloane, the protest makes headlines around the world and leads to PETA’s iconic naked celebrity ad series.

1993

All car-crash tests on animals stop worldwide following PETA’s hard-hitting campaign against General Motors’ use of live pigs and ferrets in crash tests.

peta.org/…/25-year-anniversary-peta-ends-car-cras…

1994

A California furrier is charged with cruelty to animals after a PETA investigator films him electrocuting chinchillas by clipping wires to the animals’ genitals. In another undercover exposé, PETA catches a fur rancher on videotape causing minks to die in agony by injecting them with a weedkiller. Both fur farms agree to stop these cruel killing methods.

1994

Less than a month after PETA supporters occupy Calvin Klein‘s office in New York—an action that leads to a meeting between the designer and a PETA representative—Klein announces that he will no longer design with fur, the first major fashion designer to do so.

1995

PETA persuades Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats have become trapped in them and been burned to death.

1995

PETA’s efforts lead to the first-ever cruelty charges filed against a factory farmer for cruelty to chickens for allowing tens of thousands of chickens to starve to death. The president of the company ultimately pleads guilty.

1996

Following PETA’s campaign, NASA pulls out of Bion—a joint U.S., French, and Russian experiment in which monkeys wearing straitjackets were to have electrodes implanted in their bodies and be launched into space.

1996

PETA convinces Gillette to observe a moratorium on animal testing after a colorful years-long campaign, including the presentation of shareholder resolutions at Gillette’s annual meetings and support from compassionate celebrities Paul McCartney, Lily Tomlin, Hugh Grant, and Elizabeth Hurley.

1997

A PETA investigation that documented the anal electrocution of foxes leads to the first-ever guilty plea by a fur rancher to cruelty-to-animals charges.

1998

PETA succeeds in getting Taiwan to pass its first-ever law against cruelty to animals after the group rescues countless dogs from being beaten, starved, electrocuted, and drowned in Taiwan’s pounds.

1999

Undercover investigations into pig-breeding factory farms in North Carolina and Oklahoma reveal horrific conditions and daily abuse of pigs, including the fact that one pig was skinned alive, leading to the first-ever felony indictments of farm workers.

1999

PETA conducts an undercover investigation into the Nielsen Farmspuppy mill in Kansas, which reveals extremely small enclosures and rampant sickness, abuse, and death. Our investigation leads to the closure of the facility and a $20,000 fine from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Nielsens are also “permanently disqualified from being licensed” by the USDA.

1999

PETA’s grassroots campaign, Congressional testimony, and scientific documentation drivethe White House and the EPA to spare 800,000 animals from chemical toxicity testing in the high production volume chemical-testing program.

As many as 4.5 million animals were sparedfrom chemical tests in a massive European Union testing program after PETA provided documentation of duplicative testing. This may be the largest victory for animals that has ever occurred.

peta.org/…/victory-45-million-animals-spared-toxi…

Smirk ,

I had to stop there because comment limit, I’ve given more recent example in follow up comments, even then these examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

2018

General Mills agreed to ban all experiments on animals for the purpose of making health claims about its foods after talks with PETA about the cruelty of animal studies and their irrelevance to humans.

Following years of pressure from PETA and U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), the U.S. Coast Guard has become the first branch of the military to end the shooting, stabbing, dismembering, and killing of animals in trauma training drills. In public records obtained by PETA, the agency confirmed the ban in writing, adding that it will now use superior medical simulators in these training exercises.

After PETA’s exposé led to the closure of The Pet Blood Bank in Texas, a filthy dog blood farm, and the rescue of 151 greyhounds, the greyhound racing industry adopted long-overdue standards on blood banks. The National Greyhound Association barred its members from directly sending greyhounds to any blood bank operation, established rules for the length of time dogs can be used for their blood, and requires spaying or neutering, veterinary exams, and subsequent adoption.

The Japanese government stops requiring year-long pesticide poisoning tests on dogs, sparing hundreds of dogs. The move came after PETA scientists provided extensive scientific support for doing so over the course of three years. Japan joins the U.S., the E.U., and Canada in dropping this requirement after urging from PETA.

On March 2, 2017, PETA filed a complaint alleging that the city of Arcadia violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it adopted a program to trap and kill coyotes without first assessing the environmental impact that such actions would have. On April 4, the City Council rescinded its prior adoption and allocation of funds for the trapping program—which effectively mooted the substance of our case.

After decades of campaigning against fur, PETA reached a tipping point: Hundreds of major companies have banned it—including high-end designers Giorgio Armani, Gucci, John Galliano, Donna Karan, Donatella Versace, Michael Kors, and Jimmy Choo—and InStyle became the first major fashion magazine to ban it. Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, won’t wear it, and San Francisco and Norway both banned it, joining Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, and Japan.

PETA’s 2013 exposé of the angora wool industry, which revealed that rabbits scream in pain as they’re stretched across boards and their hair is torn out, led more than 330 brands worldwide to ban angora. These include the world’s three largest retailers—H&M, Gap Inc., and Inditex (which owns Zara)—as well as Stella McCartney, Topshop, ASOS, Forever 21, Ralph Lauren, and Italian luxury designer Gucci. Just one year after we released the video footage, exports were down 85 percent—numbers are now so low that trade information databases have stopped tracking angora. PETA’s campaign has decimated the industry.

PETA’s 2018 video exposé of the mohair industry—which was the world’s first behind-the-scenes look into it—revealed egregious abuse in South Africa, the world’s top mohair producer. After learning from PETA that mohair is stolen from terrified angora goats—who are often cut open during shearing, dragged, thrown by the legs and tails, and mutilated before being killed—more than 300 brands around the world banned the fiber. Inditex, Zara, Topshop, Gap, H&M, ASOS, Ralph Lauren, Diane von Furstenberg, Brooks Brothers, Crate & Barrel, Esprit, Forever 21, Express, and UNIQLO are just a few of the kind companies to do so.

In a monumental victory for animals, Chanel became the first major high-end fashion brand to ban exotic skins—including those from crocodiles, lizards, and snakes! Fashion icon and designer Victoria Beckham also pledged to stop using exotic skins in her designs, and luxury clothing brand Diane von Furstenberg pledged to stop using them as well. These victories follow decades of pressure from PETA and mean that countless animals will be spared a miserable life and a painful, violent death.

Following Israel’s historic ban on “shackle and hoist” beef imports, the largest U.S. kosher certifier, the Orthodox Union (OU), announced that it would no longer accept beef from slaughterhouses that use that archaic and cruel method of kosher slaughter. The OU said that roughly one-third of the kosher beef that it certifies for import into the U.S. comes from South America—where PETA has conducted three investigations documenting the painful method.

AirBridgeCargo Airlines enacted a policy banning the transportation of monkeys to laboratories anywhere in the world following a campaign in which tens of thousands of PETA supporters contacted the airline to urge it to stop participating in this sordid trade. On these types of flights, monkeys who were bred on squalid factory farms or taken from their families in the wild are crammed into small wooden crates and transported to laboratories, where they endure all manner of torment and are denied everything that’s natural and important to them.

Following a PETA appeal, South Korea stopped requiring that dogs be subjected to a yearlong pesticide poisoning test. Japan, Canada, the EU, and the U.S. also eliminated this cruel test following discussions with PETA scientists, sparing thousands of dogs.

Dove—one of the world’s most widely available personal care–product brands—bans all tests on animals anywhere in the world and is added to PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies cruelty-free companies list. In addition, Unilever—which owns the Dove brand—bans all tests on animals not required by law for the rest of its products and is added to PETA’s list of companies “Working for Regulatory Change,” a category that recognizes businesses that test on animals only when explicitly required to do so by law, are transparent with PETA about any tests on animals that have been conducted and why, and work diligently to promote the development, validation, and acceptance of non-animal methods.

Following a PETA Asia exposé of an elephant polo tournament in Thailand, PETA and their affiliates persuade a dozen companies—including IBM, Johnnie Walker, and Vespa—to drop their sponsorships. The tournament’s organizing body later announced that it won’t seek another permit, effectively putting an end to elephant polo in the country.

peta.org/…/peta-asia-ends-elephant-polo-tournamen…

Smirk ,

Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit etc. comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit etc. gobbles it up.

The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.

Lastly; remember they’re not a monolith, and I can’t honestly say that I back everything they do 100%, BECAUSE of that.

They should still be scrutinised, but for the right reasons.

Smirk ,

Hey, for clarity I’ve commented below my own posts because comment limit. <3

Smirk , (edited )

That’s a whole lot of information to read and digest in 2 minutes tbh…

You sound like a talking head

Look in the mirror mate, I don’t believe you read the entirety of what I put, bad faith imo.

Edit, forgot to ask if you had seen the BBC documentary about UK and US kennel clubs? documentaryheaven.com/bbc-pedigree-dogs-exposed/

Smirk ,

The AKC isn’t the bastion of good you’re making it out to be. They quite literally haven’t got the dogs interest at the forefront of their minds, but the amount of campaigns and disinformation throughout the years has made people like yourself blindly support them because Idk, dogs are cute and everyone should have one?

No. I don’t think dogs are for our enjoyment, and as long as ACK sees them as objects for us, I can’t take you seriously in saying they care about the welfare and rights of dogs.

You’re either being massively disingenuous (which makes sense with the fact you didn’t read the info I posted), you genuinely believe that kennel clubs are ethical, or you’re the PR account for AKC lol.

Dogs are objects in our society. They are bred and bought, and those that aren’t wanted are thrown away. That is wrong.

Smirk ,

The reason their kill shelters are so high is literally in the info dump above. If you don’t want to read that’s fine, but you have no valid argument till you do.

Smirk , (edited )

Annnnnd you just went full PETA on me.

What does this mean? If you can’t challenge what I put, and resort to ad hominim, this is just textbook anti peta parroting whatever supports your narrative…

I’m a huge animal lover

Oh awesome me too! How long have you been vegan? :)

Yeah I’ll be honest, i thought exactly the same as you about PETA before going vegan. But if you’re vegan, you’re intent on reducing the suffering of animals right? So it’s not too much of a leap to imagine a world where the people with the most money and the most to lose have orchestrated an incredibly effective smear campaign.

I’m giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming you’re here in good faith. As a fellow vegan, you must understand the commodification of sentient beings is absolutely unnecessary in 2023

Smirk ,

Not worth my time.

Please try and lead a better life.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •