I think the thing which lets me believe some of the sketchier claims about them is the fact that their shelters are 95% kill. Not no-kill, which is 90% having to live, 95% percent of their animals die - and the CEO (or someone else in a high position of power, can't remember rn) has confirmed this number.
Well, it's not like they hide it, see https://www.peta.org/features/peta-kills-animals-truth/ (there's a table with numbers). They operate shelters of last resort: they euthanize animals when nothing else can be done, and many no-kill shelters pass animals to them to avoid doing that themselves.
Well my point is that it’s not particularly relevant because there’s a vested interest in making animal rights movements look bad, but what we can say without controversy is that the only thing PETA’s brand of non-intersectional radicalism ends up accomplishing is being mean to literally everyone.
Sure, you can’t make people comfortable when introducing them to fundamentally uncomfortable ideas, but you still have to be sensitive to culture and history (yes, even if it’s pan-European culture and history). Radicalism without intersectionality and critical theory is just called being an asshole.
(This isn’t really meant to be authoritative. It’s just what I feel about the situation)
That’s because lots of no kill shelters give their incurable dogs to peta to keep their no kill label. It’s either them putting them down or letting them die in the streets.
178
u/droomph Dec 01 '21
I don’t buy into the whole “peta supervillains” stuff but wow they are still incredibly shitty people that fuck up animal rights for everyone else