PETA以提供水费援助为诱饵，要求底特律居民放弃肉食，引发了广泛争议。这一策略被认为是PETA一贯的“争议营销”策略，旨在通过引起公众关注来提升组织知名度，但同时也引发了公众的反感和抵触情绪。这一事件也引发了对PETA策略的反思，是否过度强调争议性，而忽略了真正有效的宣传方式。

🤔 PETA以提供水费援助为诱饵，要求底特律居民放弃肉食，这一策略引发了广泛争议。该策略被认为是PETA一贯的“争议营销”策略，旨在通过引起公众关注来提升组织知名度。 这一策略的争议点在于，将水费援助与放弃肉食捆绑在一起，被认为是将慈善行为与自身利益捆绑，缺乏真诚和尊重。此外，该策略也引发了公众对于PETA宣传方式的质疑，认为其过度强调争议性，而忽略了真正有效的宣传方式。

🤬 这一策略引发了公众的强烈反感和抵触情绪。许多人认为PETA的策略过于激进和极端，并将其视为一种“哗众取宠”的行为。他们认为，PETA应该专注于宣传素食主义的益处，而不是利用争议来博取眼球。 这一事件也引发了对PETA策略的反思，是否过度强调争议性，而忽略了真正有效的宣传方式。许多人认为，PETA的策略虽然能够引起公众的关注，但也可能会适得其反，导致更多的人反感和抵触。

💡 PETA的策略引发了人们对动物权利和素食主义的讨论，但也暴露了其宣传策略的缺陷。对于一个致力于动物福利的组织来说，应该更加注重理性、包容和有效的宣传方式，而不是一味追求争议和炒作。 这一事件也提醒我们，在进行社会宣传时，应该更加注重策略的有效性，以及对公众情绪的把握。过度强调争议性，可能会适得其反，反而会损害组织的形象和目标的实现。

🌱 尽管PETA的策略引发了争议，但也引发了人们对动物福利和素食主义的思考。许多人开始关注动物权利，并对自己的饮食习惯进行反思。这或许是PETA想要达成的目标之一。 然而，PETA的策略也引发了人们对慈善行为的反思，以及如何更好地进行社会宣传。如何将慈善行为与自身利益相结合，如何进行有效的社会宣传，都是值得我们思考的问题。

🌎 这也反映了动物保护组织在进行宣传时面临的困境。一方面，他们需要引起公众的关注，才能推动社会进步；另一方面，他们又需要避免过度激进和极端，避免引起公众的反感和抵触。如何平衡这两者，是动物保护组织需要不断探索和实践的问题。 这一事件也提醒我们，在进行社会宣传时，应该更加注重策略的有效性，以及对公众情绪的把握。过度强调争议性，可能会适得其反，反而会损害组织的形象和目标的实现。

“Nobody makes an IRC channel for no reason. Who are we doing this versus?” — topic of #slatestarcodex

 

I.

Some old news I only just heard about: PETA is offering to pay the water bills for needy Detroit families if (and only if) those families agree to stop eating meat.

(this story makes more sense if you know Detroit is in a crisis where the bankrupt city government is trying to increase revenues by cracking down on poor people who can’t pay for the water they use.)

Predictably, the move has caused a backlash. The International Business Times, in what I can only assume is an attempted pun, describes them as “drowning in backlash”. Groundswell thinks it’s a “big blunder”. Daily Banter says it’s “exactly why everyone hates PETA”. Jezebel calls them “assholes”, and we can all agree Jezebel knows a thing or two about assholery.

Of course, this is par for the course for PETA, who have previously engaged in campaigns like throwing red paint on fashion models who wear fur, juxtaposing pictures of animals with Holocaust victims, juxtaposing pictures of animals with African-American slaves, and ads featuring naked people that cross the line into pornography.

People call these things “blunders”, but consider the alternative. Vegan Outreach is an extremely responsible charity doing excellent and unimpeachable work in the same area PETA is. Nobody has heard of them. Everybodyhas heard of PETA, precisely because of the interminable stupid debates about “did this publicity stunt cross the line?”

While not everyone is a vegan, pretty much everybody who knows anything about factory farming is upset by it. There is pretty much zero room for PETA to convert people from pro-factory-farming to anti-factory-farming, because there aren’t any radical grassroot pro-factory-farming activists to be found. Their problem isn’t lack of agreement. It’s lack of publicity.

PETA creates publicity, but at a cost. Everybody’s talking about PETA, which is sort of like everybody talking about ethical treatment of animals, which is sort of a victory. But most of the talk is “I hate them and they make me really angry.” Some of the talk is even “I am going to eat a lot more animals just to make PETA mad.”