Yet PETA’s Campaign To Limit Speech Is No More Unethical Than Other Attacks On Freedom Of Expression, Just More Self-Evidently Stupid…

Speciesism

It doesn’t matter what words, phrases or expressions politically-motivated censors try to eliminate from the language, be it gender pronouns, “retard,” fuck,” “nigger” (or “niggardly”), “bitch,” “Karen,” or “master; ” “a chink in the armor,” “sexual preferences,” “Illegal aliens,” or “anchor babies.” The intent is to limit the ideas that can be expressed, and, eventually, thought. The principle is pure Orwellian linguistic: what the brain can’t express, it can’t imagine. The technique is unethical; worse, it’s a weapon against democracy and freedom of thought.

PETA, the U.S. organization that most egregiously misuses the word “ethical” in its name (with CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a close second) would like to erase the boundaries between human beings and animals in law and culture. Thus it must have seemed like a natural progression to them to come up with “speciesism,” a form of alleged bigotry in which humans view themselves as superior to animals, just because they are. Hence the new directives above. PETA wants dictionaries to excise from the language derogatory metaphors involving certain animals. “Animal-related slurs used to debase humans reinforce inaccurate and harmful characterizations of animals,” PETA says.

“Oh, shut up and get a life, you silly people,” Ethics Alarms says. Animal metaphors and comparisons contribute to the richness of language and literature, and unlike negative characterizations of human individuals and groups, nobody’s feeling are hurt, because, see, one of the reasons humans are superior is that they can read and understand complex language.

The group didn’t give this latest effort to get publicity very much thought. Why are only the animals above—chickens, dogs, rats, snakes and pigs singled out? Why not cats (Scaredy!), foxes (Sly!), mules (Stubborn!), plus sheep, hyenas, lions, …heck, there are more than a hundred of them. All of the metaphors aid in communicating ideas and images. Losing such expressions simply makes our language less rich and useful, and comprehension of the world more difficult to define.

PETA hasn’t considered how it will distinguish an “inaccurate,’ representation either. Is “drinks like fish” offensive to fish? Does anyone think it is a literal description of what fish do? “Skunked” means to defeat decisively. How does that even relate to the animal? Are positive metaphors OK with PETA, even if they are inaccurate too? Wise as an owl? Owls are dumb. Loyal as a dog? It’s usually true, but it demeans the dog as some kind of blind follower. Are such metaphors negative because they are stereotypes?

I don’t think whoever made that chart knows what the metaphors using the animals chosen are. “Rat” doesn’t just mean “snitch,” it also means a traitor, or a mean person. “Pig” doesn’t just mean “repulsive”—it may mean a misogynist or a glutton. Who uses “snake” to mean “jerk”? “Snake” is generally used to describe someone who is untrustworthy and diabolical; it’s a literary allusion to the Bible story of Adam and Eve. Many of the animal metaphors are based on myths, legends and folk tales. Banning the metaphors leads directly to banning the stories.

PETA is obviously making its move as the ascendant progressives try to make censorship and thought control acceptable, and ultimately mandatory.

What a bunch of jackasses.

19 thoughts on “Yet PETA’s Campaign To Limit Speech Is No More Unethical Than Other Attacks On Freedom Of Expression, Just More Self-Evidently Stupid…

  1. To add to the list, my children are as follows: a polar bear, a spider monkey, and a raccoon. My eldest tolerates cold temperatures very well. My middle daughter is spindly and likes climb (especially me), and my youngest gets into EVERYTHING (darling two-year-old that she is).

    I can also chip in bull and bear markets, frog in our throats, attention span of a gnat or goldfish, busy as a bee, hovering like a vulture, and I’m sure I could come up with a few more without even resorting to Google.

    How many can we all come up with, do you think?

    Even better would be common terms that derive from an animal-based term in another language, or a more archaic form of English. Does anyone know any off the top of your head?

    One I did have to Google: lark. How offensive is it for the bird that a different etymology has given us a word spelled and sounding the same that means something not serious? Do we get to invoke an animal-based niggardly principle, or is that right out as well?

  2. Just not people we want to befriend. On the other hand, I’ve known a few jackasses (the animal, not the human) who are eminently friendly and not just when you have something to feed them.

  3. Peta are a bunch of attention whores.

    I was tempted to post the photo with the caption, “Wake up, sheeple!” Then, I realized I’d be falling into their trap. They post bullshit, hoping people talk about and think about them.

  4. I’m willing to cut PETA whatever slack I can here, which is nearly none, because they are, as you say, unethical.

    Which said: PETA has always characterized itself by using highly opportunistic, attention-grabbing nonsense like this. If their marketing approach and operations weren’t so sleazy, I could almost respect the sense of humor required to engage in this type of guerrilla PR warfare.

    Almost. Because they remain unethical sleazeballs. That they would pull a stunt like this at such a time is, unfortunately, par for their odd little course.

  5. Coward comes from a French word meaning one with a tail, or so says the internet. One with a tail being – you guessed it – an animal! How dare they!

  6. Lest we forget… “Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.”
    Translation via PETA.
    If they can make you feel bad about something this stupid, they will because maybe you’ll donate to their shell game to appease your guilt.

  7. Wait. Will black guys no longer be able to refer to each other as “dog?” Isn’t that systemically racist and white supremist? When favored groups collide… it’s hilarious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.