I hope one day they generically engineer a sushi salmon that can be directly sliced into sushi rolls like this.
I used to be very sympathetic to PETA but then I watched them operate for a while and it went away.
“Sushi” refers to the sour rice, not the fish. You can have completely vegan sushi.
Heads up for anybody like me who loves their yam tempura and avocado sushi, they almost always add Japanese mayonnaise to sushi, but you can ask them to make it without it and then it is vegan.
To wit, most sushi establishments have vegan options on their menus regardless of intent to accommodate. I had a delicious fully vegan sushi meal on my vacation just a few months ago.
You can, but it’s hard to find any that’s good. And no, I’m not paying $8 for you to put sliced cucumber in rice, thank you.
Affirming the Disjunct. -10 philosophical credits.
It’s worth taking a moment to remember that PETA, despite not being perfect, has been the victim of a smear campaign by the meat industry, so every mistake they make is amplified and every policy that isn’t immediately obviously sensible is reframed to look as bad as possible. E.g. you’ll often see that PETA-run dog shelters euthanise a lot more dogs than the average shelter, leaving out the context that plenty of no-kill shelters send all their sick dogs to a PETA shelter to be euthanised so they can claim not to have killed the dog, but that skews the statistics. You’ll also see news reports about PETA abducting a pet dog and killing it, which leave out the fact that it’s one past event being reported over and over as if it’s news each time, and that it was a much more nuanced situation than most people think. A pet dog’s collar fell off while it was unattended playing with a pack of strays, which animal control had been dispatched to round up, and then sent to PETA to be put down, then a series of clerical errors meant animal control told the owners they never had the dog and told PETA that the dog had already been held waiting to see if an owner claimed it, so it was already dead by the time the owners tracked down where it had really ended up.
Smear campaign or not, their marketing and social media presence is aggressive and obnoxious on purpose. It seems to be purely focused on getting as many eyes on them as possible without actually considering what those eyes will think of them after getting the desired attention.
When I think of PETA I don’t think of an organization with strong moral and ethical principles, I think of an organization that made a bunch of tone-deaf video game parodies in the 2000s to try and get attention. Those are wounds that are entirely self-inflicted.
i played all those awful peta games as a kid, they would show all the gross shit in slaughterhouses and stuff
didnt change my eating habits one bit
Woah, we got a badass over here!
thanks 💪😎🤳
That… wasn’t a compliment.
it was and i thank you for it
Hating one side doesn’t automatically make you like the opposing side.
You can hate both PETA and the industrial meat industry. You can also laugh at memes mocking both.
At the end of the day, PETA creates misinformation and isn’t on the side of good. They milk their supporters for more money and once in a while, gets a really good talking point but then botch it because of how stupid they present themselves.
PETA is the Westboro Baptist Church of the animal rights movement: Purely focused on getting eyes at them at any cost, no matter how stupid it makes them and the people associated with them look. I’ll never take an organization that wasted their time yelling about how catching bugs in a video game is evil seriously. At this point, they’re either willfully stupid or they’ve been infiltrated by the meat industry and pushed to do things that discredit them.
PETA are their own smear campaign. Their own ignorance and skewing facts to push a narrative are all I needed to not trust what they or any of their supporters have to say about animals.
Isn’t it great when a flawed messenger lets you ignore an inconvenient message and give no further thought to any hint of outside influence? Even better when you can label any wrong thinker as part of their group!
PETA exists to kite misplaced public vitriol and industrial counter-propaganda away from the constellation of smaller animal advocacy groups who make the majority of forward progress on their shared mission. Some local vegan advocacy group with 30 members can do an outsized amount of good in their community but isn’t going to survive a corporate laser targeting, however PETA can shrug off an attack like that without issue. PETA is basically the main tank of a raid group, smaller orgs are the DPS, and industrial animal agriculture (Or from my social ecology perspective, our tendency to dominate the natural world in general) is the raid boss. PETA very much wants the vitriol and isn’t at all the out of touch misguided organization that they willing and strategically wear as a reputation.
This has serious 4d chess vibes to it.
It’s not really that complicated a strategy for a large, well-financed team of full time activists to produce, and really it’s within a genre of “leveraging propagandized outrage” shock activism seen more frequently in the past decade from larger advocacy groups. Like those incidents of people vandalizing art with soup, or pouring products on the ground in grocery stores, or painting monuments. It generates outrage, that outrage garauntees wide news coverage, that wide news coverage reaches and activates 100x or 1000x the number of fresh new activists that traditional advocacy acts might, making the media-directed vitreol of millions who will forget and move on within a week fantastically worthwhile. It basically taps into the power of existing propaganda against a movement, using it to ultimately drive interest in the movement. I forget where I was reading an interview with a Greenpeace leader, about how they simply couldn’t pass on these tactics because of how effective they are, and they arrived at that conclusion not by prediction but by experience.
Sure. Anyone who is aligned with the mission will perceive this as an expert move. Similarly, Trump or Musk supporters do the same. Hence, 4D chess.
From what I gathered reading the interview mentioned (I’ll see if I can find it) it was the statistical results they couldn’t argue with. There was just as much skepticism and resistance to these tactics internally, until the results couldn’t be ignored. Activists are generally concerned about likability and are not analagous to nihilistic billionaire narcissists.
edit - This article by a disruptive politics researcher isn’t the interview I’m looking for but it illustrates my ideas here better than I have.
Are you referring to The credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack messages
Results indicated that PETA’s attack message against abuses at corporate pig farms was effective in eroding the credibility of the corporate food-industry raising animals for consumption. At the same time, PETA’s credibility rose overall after participants viewed the PETA attack message.
That seems to align with your argument but not with the topic. The study was focused on corporate pig farm.
The 53 participants were volunteers participating for course credit from upper division communication courses at a large public university located in an area where agribusiness interests loom large.
This is a terrible sample to base any conclusions on.
The results only give clear indication that such advocacy messages intensify already existing negative predispositions
And this indicates it is not a generally useful approach.
The study doesn’t measure how long the effect lasts; outrage is fleeting.
No, but I edited my previous comment to link to an article that’s close to what I’ve been trying to explain.
Except tanks don’t go around making adventurers look bad.
To the contrary! A bumbling oafishness that sometimes makes the team look bad to outsiders is a core tank trope and a common recipe for initiating encounters. And Taunt is a cornerstone of the tank kit.
Seriously though, PETA doesn’t make other vegan activists look any worse than animal ag propaganda already does. A lot of money goes into making vegans look bad.
Yea a lot of money goes in to making activists look bad … which is exactly why it’s absolutely moronic of PETA to contribute actively to the problem.
Especially when they’re adding credibility to the slander.
And yet, it’s a strategy that has worked for decades.
Removed by mod
No ad hominem please, I presume we’re all adults here. I understand why PETAs strategies may seem counter-intuitive from the outside, but they’re a large organization that has been finding success in their mission for decades.
I know plenty of people who didn’t go vegetarian or vegan especially because peta made that choice look obnoxious and they didn’t want to associate with it
Peta is doing more harm than good
How many people? Tell me all the details about each of them.
Do these people really think the use of AI for that photo outweighs the positive impact from that sort of ad campaign??
PETA’s only goal is attention. Does this help their cause? Yes, because we’re here talking about them from their marketing.
That’s the intent behind most AI in marketing. They intentionally make it obvious so you get angry and talk about their ads. The goal is attention.
PETA is weird because they’re not so much “pro animal rights” or “pro eco friendly” as they are “anti domesticated animals” including pets.
As a result a lot of their messaging is desperate propaganda, like spreading the pseudoscience that milk causes autism, or trying to imply that shearing sheep for wool hurts them somehow.
They’ve also done some pretty evil things because they believe animals are better off dead than domesticated.
They aren’t against the concept of having pets themselves they just don’t like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn’t find homes.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
And sheep do get hurt being shared because the industry focuses on the end result of as many fleeces as fast as possible rather than the well being of the animals not to mention the fact they have to be shared or else they overheat because we bred them into wool producing machines.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-industry/
Peta very much are what they say they are. There’s just a lot of smear campaigns at them because “haha these crazy vegoons say they’re against animal cruelty but they actually kill heaps of animals themselves” is a narrative that drives engagement.
The problem we have here is that PETA has started vicious campaigns and said things that were either untrue or misleading, then pulled them down and posted whitewashed versions on their website.
You’re posting their current outward-facing propaganda. And at the moment, their messages are marginally OK. Still a little too far on the gross just to make a point. However, those messages evolve, and their activism evolves. All too often they cross lines, they pull back like it never happened.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they’ve since removed from the record
https://research.open.ac.uk/news/why-asking-what-causes-autism-wrong-question
They find some bad actors in the wool industry and rightfully go after them, then turn around and say it’s all that way.
I did volunteer dog transport for a while, moving animals out of one of their kill shelters to non-kill shelters in other states. Volunteers set up relays to move the dogs, sometimes hundreds of miles away, to save their lives.
It’s one of the fundamental problems with PETA, people don’t trust their campaigns. They put out a bunch of real information, good causes, then release some false or misleading data, everyone gets stirred up, you go a look into it and the hot button stuff ends up falling apart. The gross stuff doesn’t shock people into action; it makes them wary of the organization. Maybe it gains them a few activists, but they could be so much more effective if they played it all straight.
It’s hurt their image to the point that it’s not just that people don’t care, but they don’t trust what they have to say.
Back in my 20’s I looked into them, actually considered supporting them. I was thinking they couldn’t possibly be doing the things people accused them of. Just digging for a while, I couldn’t bring myself to support them. There are numerous issues that could be brought to light. Plenty of winnable fights for good causes, * instead the pick Anti-pets, autism milk, trying to take down the entire wool industry like every sheep out there is getting eviscerated. They’re absolutely tone deaf to the non-PETA population to the point of being unsavory.
Print stickers of caged chickens and put them on eggs, put dairy farm images on milk cartons. put up booths outside supermarkets with impossible burger sliders. Ohh wait, yeah, they won’t support plant based burgers either.
And honestly, that’s not even scratching the issue of uncontrolled extremists doing things in their name.
edit: for clarity
Your first link is some guy’s website misrepresenting what peta’s actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta’s website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there’s an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can’t find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn’t have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn’t envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don’t care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that’s a good thing.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they’ve since removed from the record
I can’t look at the campaign anymore because they’ve removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like “Oh peta said milk causes autism!” When they didn’t. They used the autism panic at the time and the “got milk” ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don’t just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I’m glad it’s been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don’t give a fuck if such a charity employs the “any publicity is good publicity” method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.
All they do is ramble about the issues, yet they provide nothing to the table. They are an egotistical organisation that only cares about the issues they seem to acknowledge. Real issues and real solutions are being tucked beneath the carpet.
They aren’t against the concept of having pets themselves they just don’t like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn’t find homes.
…and yet PETA shelters have higher kill rates than many/most others.
Why?
It’s an out of context stat. They run a kill shelter of last resort. It saves hundreds of animals a year who would be killed otherwise, but as it’s a last resort, as one would expect it has a higher kill rate than the other shelters they transfer failed adoptees from.
It’s shocking how many people parrot the decontextualized fact without ever looking up it’s context, which is readily available. Like a half dozen times in this thread alone.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters
so… it’s not misinformation
A stat divorced from it’s context in order to make a benefit look like a failure certainly feels like misinformation. It definitely results in misinformed people.
The OP and its traction are the perfect encapsulation of the kind of dumb most people are… sadly.
If you’re as principled as PETA wants you to believe they are, there is no “outweighing”.
Printing flyers on a paper is out too if there’s no consideration for good outweighing the bad
Everyone here salivating over the easy opportunity to ridicule peta is no different than right wing nut jobs celebrating attacks on migrants. Its orchestrated hate to distract you from the real issues. Ffs wake up.
bro what i just dont like peta they do bad things
same reason i make fun of republicans and scientologists and certain churches
peta is NOT veganism
peta is a failed organization that directly defeats its stated purpose and that’s hilarious. you calling me a nazi is obtuse and joyless.
“Clowning on PETA is just like cheering on violence against immigrants”
Bozo take rejected buddy, try again some other time.
i was shocked to see that comment with so many votes
fuck PETA and its “tactics” and i encourage everyone to consider perusing this filterable table of vegan charities and nonprofits for your dollar consideration
I mean honestly the real issue is that there are no salmon that we can easily slice into sushi rolls like this. Come on scientists and do your fucking job.
Just like the “right wing nutjobs celebrating attacks on migrants” that YOU enjoy ridiculing in your post, PETA has earned their ridicule also.
They stopped being People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals long ago. They are now just another money grubbing organization.
Oof… I got owned there. Thanks for puttimg me in my place.
PETA isn’t an environmental group. What kind of dumb does it take to mix that one up?
people have no idea what the difference is between animal rights and environmentalism.
ill stump for vegetarianism and veganism all day but peta is still fucking stupid.
It’s not hard to imagine destroying the environment directly affects a lot of animals?
And farming lots of animals directly affects the environment!
The organization opposes factory farming, fur farming, animal testing, and other activities it considers to be exploitation of animals.
Their focus is literally their name. I don’t think it’s very reasonable to claim “using too much water and electricity” has a meaningful direct impact on the ethical treatment of animals even if it does impact animals negatively.
The animal industry uses up a hell of a lot more water than AI. And the water usage from AI mostly comes from the efforts to produce that electricity which in this case typically means fossil fuels. These issues would be solved if we were just using renewable energy sources.
They aren’t promoting an environmentalist message here though, but an anti-animal-cruelty message. You can agree or disagree that it’s a good message, but it has nothing to do with their shitty AI ad.
Animals aren’t as good as humans at surviving climate change, so caring about one should include caring about the other…
It’s a single AI image. The impact of generating a single image is basically nothing. I think it’s a stupid post, but they should be able to post it without being denigrated about the effects of AI generated images
This is a universal thing that happens to anyone advocating for positive change even if just tangentially to the environment. Constantly told it isn’t perfect enough. Greta Thunberg had her efforts constantly belittled, no matter how she did it. She spent months crossing the ocean on a boat to avoid taking a plane, but was still put on blast for it
Advocating for a more sustainable way of life shouldn’t be met with a persistent, “but you’re not perfect”
they should be able to post it without being denigrated about the effects of AI generated images
That’s generous of you to give this specific organization a pass on this but that’s your personal choice.
Your ability to justify it is part of why everyone else thinks peta is a joke. It’s so dogmatic it’s become a religion.
Firstly, human beings are animals.
Secondly, there are plenty of examples of different species of animals that benefit - nay, thrive - because of climate change. Blanket statements such as yours is not helping either side.
Removed by mod
I agree. However if you do stuff primarily for the animals, you almost always are secondarily doing things for ecology and society too, even if that isn’t necessarily the intention. There are a lot of beneficial external side effects to spreading veganism.
The animal they’re asking us not to eat requires water to live. Something ai uses a lot of.
a big fish requires smaller fish to live. something that himans eat a lot of
ai does use a lot of water, but i dont think its a driving factor that majorly affects fish. there may be places where industrial water use is “drying up” rivers, lakes, etc, but ai data centers are not likely a proportionally large part of this. most water use goes towards agriculture, and a lot of that agriculture is used for animal feed (for the animals that people eat) and creating ethanol to power cars. ai is bad, but not in a way tgat greatly affecta fish
Sushi is generally salt water fish. AI uses fresh water.
PETA members always come out of the woodworks for these posts.
Anti peta memes doing the laps. Hmmmmm
Are we sure that’s AI and not just AI paranoia caused by a decent photoshop job? Cause it looks like a shop to me (Because of the pixels, and having seen quite a few shops in my time)
Also keep shitting on PETA, the aegis and vanguard of an ethical and ecological movement, you certainly won’t ever regret doing that.
they are very easy to hate and there’s a lot of misinformation about them online. I used to hate them too before going vegan and I still don’t agree with some of their activism
Yes, just look at that weird tear.
I suck at image manipulation, and even I would be able to align the hand and the fish somewhat.The tear I chalked up to just weird preferences, but yeah now that I’m focusing on it the hand in the back behind the fish doesn’t make much sense, that’s not how I’d hold something I’m cutting.
I’m pretty sure that’s because the hand is holding onto the rest of the sushi roll, not the fish. It’s at least two images photoshopped together, one of a person cutting a sushi roll and one of a fish, with a weird tear added onto it
Pretty sure that’s a trout, not a salmon.
A freshwater fish that will never see a kelp forest. Because those only exist in salt water.
And trout are not full of rice
Wow, good eye. I hope that doesn’t mean the whole thing is fake
There’s clearly a photo of it. Of course it’s real
Aha! And just how do you know what the inside of a fish is like, fish-murderer?
And yet you participate in society - curious.
Performative activism was a fucking mistake, but somehow it worked for the right with the satanic panic and the groomer panic.
A farmed salmon would use / pollute orders of magnitude more water then an ai image. Even if peta was willing to buy salmon there wouldve been way more resources used to create this in real life then via ai. Just the rice in the sushi would’ve required more water to grow and then prepare compared to the AI image.
How about- egads!- using an actual image or picking up a fucking pencil
I don’t think you’re making this with a pencil anyway. If you’d prefer some human slaves away at a computer for a week to make this just to keep capitalism viable for an extra year I guess that’s a thing that could happen.
If that human is being paid a fair wage to do it I don’t see the problem. I also don’t see how paying a single artist is going to “keep capitalism viable for an extra year”. Sounds like you just want artists to starve so you can have some AI vomit pixels at you and call it art.
Lol go troll somewhere else
Lol go troll somewhere else
Translation: I have no argument
(Edit:formatting)
Argument against what? You spewing pent up hate at me? Go away.
Yet again discounting the training costs…
Estimates for how much an AI image costs in water varies widely, estimates from 0.4 liters to 50 liters with the median I’m seeing at about a 1-5 liters. Even taking the 50 liter estimate which we can assume includes training and electricity generation to get a number that high that is far below a serving of rice which costs 276 liters.
Malthus would be proud of you…
the training costs are real
Even with the training costs, it is very little water compared to mass scale agriculture.
Except agriculture puts food on the table, and ai data centers just spits out soulless art and tells people to kill themselves. I would not consider them to be comparable.
We produce food in such a vast excess compared to what we need that we feed most of it to animals so we can have beef instead despite being vastly less efficient.
And I support degrowth. I do not see how this helps you. I never said we don’t have an excess, I just said we need agriculture and we dont need ai data centers.
Yeah, a process required to make food and a process to make an image that could have easily been done by an artist or simply pulled from one of the countless sites full of existing free images, are totally comparable.
How much energy would have been taken in the time it takes you to draw a poster on a computer?
I would actually be interested in the comparison, how long is a typical model trained for and how much is it used. The actual generation usage is typically a few seconds of a normal gaming PC. Training is more, but its then used by many.
