Monday, June 15, 2009

Fear Mongering/Animal Cruelty

As mentioned before PETA aren't my favourite people in the world. I've done the vegetarian thing (and currently eat vegetarian about 5 days a week - meat is hard to give up!) and I'm not down with animal cruelty or the environmental detriment that the meat industry creates, but I can't support this group. However, I understand why they do the things they do.

Watch the news, read the newspaper. 90% of the stories propagate fear. Why? Because we're prone to fear. If we fear, we are naturally inclined to react. In the case of news media, fear is conducive to building an audience, which in turn creates good ratings, which in turn creates revenue.

I assume PETA isn't after profits. However, the organization wants to change peoples reaction to animal cruelty, and to create a world where everyone is vegan, testing on animals is abolished and no one wears fur. This is similar to the news media, which is often unfair and biased, which wants to create a world where we believe the propaganda which justifies wars and the actions of unscrupulous politicians.

As I mentioned before, I'm against animal cruelty. But, is it fair to scare people into believing something? Isn't it better to let people decide for themselves what they want to do by giving them accurate information? Fear mongering takes advantage of people and assumes that if we present information in a fair and just way people aren't smart enough to make the right decision, or that presenting both sides of a story creates ambivalence. It also assumes that people are desensitized, and that only the most shocking and disturbing portrayals of issues will illicit a reaction.

Moreover, I think a lot of people are naive to think that their choices as consumers will have an effect on anything. If you feel better about not eating meat, or not buying sweat-shop products, or buying organic, then by all means, do it. But if you think taking away a few measly bucks from a company will have any effect then I urge you to reconsider by which means you wish to make an oppositional stance.

This idea that we have agency through consumption is a myth created by the media. It is the same fallacy that tells you that you will be empowered (physically, sexually, socially) if you buy a Wonderbra or Axe deodorant! These corporations make millions and sometimes billions of dollars every year and they don't give a shit if you buy their product or not. A minuscule decrease in revenue perpetrated by a bunch of trustafarians is like a drop in the ocean to them.

So don't be naive. Let people know the facts, and if they agree with you, great. Rally those people together. Tackle the system from the inside. Use the medias love of sensational events to stage a protest in a visible area as bait. Spread your message. Be concise, and don't be pretentious. Don't use hate. Don't use fear. Because then you're lowering yourself to their level. And if you want to stage a protest, I'll join you with a sign, war paint, and a loud speaker.

And like my roommate James suggested, joining a facebook group isn't doing any good either.

1 comment:

  1. i totally agree about the whole fear thing. and yeah peta is an extreme group, but they do manage to get the message out. even if i dont agree with some of their messages. but i do think that individuals can make a difference. sure, one person isnt going to put a dent in their revenue. but if everyone thinks like that, then no one will change and we will never be able to make a big difference. whereas if individuals are encouraged to make a change then maybe when everyone's efforts are pooled together we can make an overall difference. or at least if we get enough then maybe the big coorporations will rethink how they run things!
    anywayyyysss just thought i'd throw that out there! lol. i'm a pragmatic person, but i still feel the little guy has the power to make a difference! lol.
    - Rachael H

    ReplyDelete