Animal Rights Terrorists

[Guest guest]

Dear Steve,

 

I was planning on writing my own comment along these lines, and then I read

your post and realized I could not have expressed these points as

articulately and convincingly as you did. Thank you for writing this. I

really hope some of the animal rights terrorists take the trouble to read

your post and actually think about what you are saying.

 

I resent the fact that animal rights terrorism is undoing all the positive

work other people in the AR movement are doing. I just returned from the

Animal Rights conference in LA organized by FARM. I challenge anyone - even

the most hardcore animal rights terrorist - to call the members of FARM

" useless " . These types of organizations have done far more to advance the

cause of Animal Rights than any animal rights anarchists. And they DON'T use

violence to get the message across, because they know that violence DOESN'T

work. Why are the animal rights terrorists so intent on blindly pursuing a

course of action that has been proven time and time again to fail??? I

believe they have other axes to grind and are " using " animal rights as a

guise. My advice to them would be to get some therapy to work out the real

issues that are troubling them.

 

Joanna Warner

 

Message: 16

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:29:50 -0700

Steve Simitzis <steve

Re: Re: foie gras media coverage

 

regardless of her slant and her past articles (which few people would

have known about), the fact that she was chosen by the chron to write

the article should say something.

 

there are two ways to engage in public debate -

 

(1) present your stance in a manner that is so principled and so

indisputable, that either the media has no choice but to take your

side, or you *own* the media coverage of your action (because they are

open and willing to just copy your press releases directly). result:

the majority of the public is either on your side or willing to

consider your side.

 

or

 

(2) operate with a flagrant disregard for anything else but your

cause. negative media is released, convincing about 90% of the public

that your cause is bad. then, gather your choir and all your allies,

and mount a reactive defense against the negative media. result:

although the public will largely ignore the follow-up story or the

letters to the editor, you might convince 1% of the original 90% to

change their minds. everyone else will remember the word " terrorism "

and will spend the rest of the next few years harassing their vegan

nieces and nephews at thanksgiving.

 

it's all a matter of strategy. the first strategy requires careful

understanding of how to reach people and how to appeal to their sense

of self-interest. the second strategy involves running blindfolded at

everyone, friend or foe, with hammers and axes. either you can lead

public opinion, or you can let public opinion lead you around by a

chain.

 

it's not enough to have a good idea. the key is knowing how to reach

people who don't care about your idea. that is everything. hell, if

people on *this list*, full of vegetarians, vegans, and animal rights

supporters aren't even on your side, how do you think you're going to

win anyone else over?

 

i don't care how many letters you send to the sf chron; as far

as the public is concerned, you've lost this debate permanently.

 

think about it. which article are people going to identify with more

strongly?

 

(1) A top San Francisco chef has become the target of radical animal

rights activists in a series of attacks that police are calling

domestic terrorism.

 

(2) An unknown SF Chronicle journalist was reprimanded today for writing

a biased article about radical animal rights activists.

 

furthermore, the PETA quote was actually extremely damaging. quotes

like that in that context reinforce the notion that whenever violence

in the name of animal rights takes place, PETA must be behind it

somehow. which is a shame. the public isn't going to remember, " oh

the chron called PETA and they're not involved, i guess they're swell! " .

they're going to remember " animal rights " = " terrorism " = " PETA " .

 

i can no longer hand out PETA literature or link information from PETA

websites to non-veggies without receiving ridicule, thanks to this

image.

 

if you don't believe me, get to know middle america sometime. the word

" PETArd " is used to describe any vegan or animal rights supporter. animal

rights activists are quickly becoming thought of in the same light as

abortion clinic snipers, and to hear you justify your position is deeply

depressing to me.

[Guest guest]

I realize people may have sent additional emails before seeing Tammy's

last email on the subject, but can people please take the time to read

it and move on.

 

Folks still interested in this topic, may I suggest that you continue

this discussion in on our bulletin board in the animal rights forum -

 

http://www.generationv.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=3

 

That way folks that are interested in the debate can continue it there.

 

Thanks

 

Chris