Gizmodo Writer Says 'PETA Doesn't Give a Shit About Humans'

Screenshot

PETA is an extremist animal rights organization. Anyone familiar with the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and their unique, often celebrity championed campaigns will agree. Over the past few months we've covered their anti-fur ad featuring Italian model Elisabetta Canalis, opposition of Glendale's circus elephant-themed parade float, protests of the L.A. County Fair's elephant rides, veganism porn site and their attacks on Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's new "Fully Charged" show. We're often supportive of their missions, despite their sometimes aggressive tactics. But Gizmodo writer Casey Chan is not impressed with the People. Frankly, he loathes the "bunch of reasonless rabblerousers," according to his recent article, "PETA Doesn't Give a Shit About Humans."

Chan's PETA rant stems from the group's reaction to the recent Bay Area shark attack. Charles Wickersham, 21, was badly bitten by a shark while fishing with his friends near Anna Maria Island. Wickersham remains in intensive care, and, per Chan, "those heartless pricks [PETA] are launching an insensitive ad campaign against all types of fishing. They're using a man, who almost died, as their soapbox. Their rallying call." PETA's campaign visuals? A shark chewing on a bloody human leg, or "drumstick," as Chan puts it, with the tagline, "Payback is Hell. Go Vegan."

Ouch.

According to Chan's piece, Ashley Byrne, PETA's campaign director, said, "We are very glad that Mr. Wickersham is going to be ok, but we do hope that this painful and frightening experience makes him think about the pain and fear that he's causing to fish - and other fisherman are causing to fish."

Chan replies, "Yes. Because everyone who fishes deserves to be bitten by a shark. And because if Ms. Byrne was enjoying the ocean one day, a shark would avoid her because it would know that she thinks about the pain and fear she causes to fish."

His article notes that the explicit image will appear on benches and billboards in the Bay Area. We checked out the PETA site and found that the campaign originated in 2008 to coincide with the Discovery Channel's Shark Week. Regardless, the billboard is apparently coming back to life in 2011.

PETA's campaigns are undoubtedly designed with a certain shock factor to stir up emotion, raise awareness and ultimately sway their opponents to join them in their pursuit. But Chan says "PETA is not normal. No. They're insane." While he agrees that organizations in support of animal rights are essential, he urges PETA to "please remember where you came from."

Or else what? "Or I'll have to start PAETPETA, People Against the Ethical Treatment of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals," says Chan.

What do you think, Angelenos? Is PETA crossing the line?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Lauren Lloyd in News on September 29, 2011 12:40 PM

Comments [rss]

2mark34

Chan said: "Because everyone who fishes deserves to be bitten by
a shark. And because if Ms. Byrne was enjoying the ocean one day, a
shark would avoid her because it would know that she thinks about the
pain and fear she causes to fish."

This is really bad reasoning. I doubt that PETA thought and they certainly didn't imply that the shark bite was intentional on the part of the shark. They didn't imply -- at all --that the shark knew he was biting a fish-killer. To suggest that PETA thinks that sharks can read minds -- is a philosophical error called attacking a straw man. More reasonably, I interpret PETA to mean that IF you're going to go in the water with sharks in order to catch them or kill them, you risk being attacked yourself. Perfectly reasonable! The fact that PETA might like it that you are attacked -- is irrelevant.

PETA works to help animals and they are very successful at it. That's why people like Chan and Lloyd devote time and energy attacking them. If they weren't effective, no one would bother.

Lori Ross

As far as Elephant rides, well boo hoo, idiot ---is your LIFE going to be ruined if people's stinking kids can't ride a highly intelligent animal around in circles ? Who HAS to ride an Elephant ? Nobody. On the other hand if the animal is left to a half-way decent life somewhere other than being trucked around to circuses and being treated as a carnival ride, that does sound a lot better, a lot more intelligent,humane and kind.

Lori Ross

I'm glad someone is sticking up for animals. They feel pain and fear just like we do, except they basically have no rights. They are murdered and it is accepted as "normal" to many un-evolved people. How would you like it if it was reversed ? It's called "compassion", being able to put yourself in another living being's "shoes" so to speak. If you could be mistreated or killed off or raised and murdered for food....and have your family killed in front of your eyes in some cases, you would be going through what they do. Murder,mistreatment,family separation,being raised only to be killed as "food"...........or being killed because someone wants your HAIR {pelt, fur...}.