[chucksmash]

That's a huge subjective leap to say time has disproved people who consider PETA and their methods ridiculous.

I would consider myself a person in favor of the ethical treatment of animals, and PETA campaigns like (the now quite old, but eminently memorable) "rebranding fish as sea kittens" [1] are so far out in la-la land, so ridiculous, and go so far in letting perfect be the enemy of good ("let's go after those unethical pescatarians!") that the organization loses credibility.

It doesn't help that in the intervening years, my main interaction with the organization (as well as Oxfam, ASPCA, etc) has been shady third party donation subscription hawkers trying to earn commissions off of tricking me into acknowledging them on lunch hour.

If there have been improvements in the treatment of animals over time, I'd make my own subjective leap to say they happened in spite of PETA, not because of it.

[1]: https://spotlight.peta.org/petaseakittens/

[1ris]

Yes, peta are profoundly unlikeable people, back then and now. I don't like them, I think their holocaust comparisons are unforgivable and neither am i vegan. My point is that they are living rent free in peoples heads and do actually change attitudes. Because there was a huge change and i just don't see who else could have caused that.

My point was: Effective activism does not have to be likeable. Going for the opposite seems a viable strategy.

[bawolff]

I mean, at least "fish are sea kittens" has some connection to their cause. The girl with the pearl earing isn't exactly mining coal.