Hot PETA Gaming Action, Say What?
In one of the more bizarre propaganda devices I have ever seen, PETA has launched a new flash game starring fun-loving forest critters committing acts of vandalism to spite the evil empire of Burberry and their fur filled tartan-flavored fashions.
As a game featuring, albeit adorable, creatures committing criminal acts, one has to wonder about PETA's specific intent. While it is worthwhile for their organization to spread information on a facet of their cause, at what point does this invite wanton criminal acts and participation in militancy for their own aggrandizement? Media shill Jack Thompson welcomely bandies the phrase, "Terrorism Simulator," and this is just that: A corporate terrorism simulator. Worse yet, it is a terrorism simulator staked against one specific entity.
So, why is it that no one is crying foul in this instance?
Also, given the gross expense in owning Burberry goods, just who is this targeting? I seriously doubt that many high-spending consumers will find this affecting. If anything, propaganda like this provides ample chance for high-spending consumers to inflate their superiority.
Give the game a try for yourself, and please, share your thoughts.
Bloody Burberry Fur Fighters [PETA]
[via Joystiq]
Noun
Posted to Miscellany, Video Games on 28 March 2008
· Comments (19)
Other stuff like this: bizarre, bloody, flash game, PETA
I personally wasn't crying foul simply because I hadn't heard about it. This is some serious douchebaggery right here, but it's frankly the kind of thing I expect from them, which is a ton of latte activism with chilling undertones.
Speaking of chilling, PETA is still killing pets... the vast majority of the pets that they "rescue" each day. Seriously, some years it's well over a 90% fatality rate if you're a cat or dog and they "save" or "liberate" you. 2007's figures aren't out yet, but in 2006 they had a 97 percent kill rate according to the VDACS animal reporting database on virginia.gov (PETA is based there.) They adopted out 12 pets, but killed 2,981. These aren't animals who were hit by cars and were beyond saving, they're pets given up by owners who probably think PETA works like the SPCA (whose chapter in PETA's home town has less than a 3% kill rate, in comparison.)
If you know a PETA member, or someone who donates money to PETA.... to quote one of their own flyers: "until he learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next." Or you could just deny him sex until he finds an animal charity that actually gives a crap about living, breathing animals more than getting on Faux News with stunts like this Flash game. Like any no-kill shelter in your area who'd be able to actually save thousands of pets with the cash PETA drops on a single tacky full-page magazine or TV ad.
Sorry for the rant, but you reminded me that PETA exists and PETA sucks.
They use violence to reach extreme goals, murder and terrorise innocent families, and outright lie, they fund people convicted of firebombing university campusses.
I couldn't live with myself knowing someone whom I considered a friend supports something like PETA, I couldn't look past what they've already done, it's disgraceful.
Raindog is absolutely correct, PETA kill over 88% of the animals it rescues. Blood on your hands much?.
Now, I'm going to go eat a steak, sacrifice the elderly and have sex with children. Loads of kids. Or not.
It's really sad that a lot of animal rights organizations are so ridiculous and extreme. There are probably some valid points to be made about the ethical treatment of animals, the effects the meat and dairy industries are having on the environment, maybe even the possible benefits of adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet.
Unfortunately all these things are totally overshadowed by PETA's batshit craziness.
Yeah, I guess if you beleave that video games causes violence then this would be a problem.
I have friends who have a sense of humour, and some concept of logic and intelligence. Basically nobody in PETA or who supports them fits these criteria.
In addition all my friends are fun, and I have no vegetarian friends... coincidence? I think not.
I don't think this is as bad as PETA's previous video game, "Super Chick Sisters." For those that haven't heard, it's a Super Mario Bros. parody, where two baby chicks have to save Pamela Anderson from an evil robotic Colonel Sanders. Seriously.
It gets even more ludicrous with the cut scenes between levels, that show Mario and Luigi suffering arm injuries from playing Wii Sports, which prevents them from saving the day. Later on, they get beaten up by a bunch of PETA protestors for cruelty to turtles.
You can check out the game at:
http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/superchicksisters/index.asp
I'm not a PETA member or necessarily a supporter, nonetheless I'm a bit shocked at the outright hostility toward vegan/vegetarianism in the comments. I'd expect my fellow queers to have a little more sense when it comes to making such blanket statements about an entire group of people. Some of these comments could easily be mistaken as coming from the Fox News website.
And just so you know, throwing blood or paint on some overpriced furs is not terrorism, despite what Bush/Cheney would have you believe. Blowing up the entire store with people in it would be terrorism.
And much agreed with UruPhred. You can't selectively decide when video game violence causes people to become violent. It either does or it doesn't. And I think most of us have enough sense to recognize the distinction between reality and fantasy.
You're quoting Jack Thompson to make your case for crying out loud!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGy2VqIbtmQ
I'm not selectively choosing this as being more damaging than other implied forms of video game violence. What I am asking (as derived from the content of the article) is why this is being seen as harmless. The Thompson quote is used to effectively question the scope in which so many patently violent titles are observed. Violence is violence, regardless of measure. So, why not hold this game similarly accountable?
Also, what most readers are foregoing is the direct entity that this disobedience is directed toward and the manner in which the criminality is being demonstrated.
Specific vandalism against a singular entity is a form of terrorism. Terrorism itself is not defined by mass death or genocide. Terrorism does not even necessitate violence. Terrorism is the perpetration of crime for an ideological goal of a group, by a member of that group, against a specified target.
There is a huge difference between a terrorist and a vegan, one of my best friends is vegan, and he rocks, he doesn't support PETA, though if he did I wouldn't call him a friend, I do feel that strongly.
There's a big difference between PETA supporting terrorists by giving money to legal funds of people who openly admit firebombing universities and supporting the fight against animal cruelty.
Animal cruelty is utterly wrong and unacceptable, as is the testing of cosmetics on animals. Anyone pro those is in my opinion needlessly sadistic.
There is no them and us, and I feel using the queer therefore minority = must support all "minorities" argument, both strawman and offensive to the people who've fought for our rights to live on near equal footing.
PETA use bombs, intimidate children and attack members of the public to get an extreme point of view accross, they are by the definition, terrorists.
I'd would say it's harmless. It goes in the same category as bushgame.com and other flash games made to make a point.
However it isn't just a silly little flash game I dislike them for. My hatred for them goes for their actual actions - they are deeply misguided bunch who support some pretty abhorrent ideas and people.
As for the fur trade itself, I take a John Stuart Mill approach - do what you like so long as it doesn't affect me. I would never wear fur (too expensive), but if others want to, it is nothing to do with me, or anyone else. If everyone (especially PETA) was more like this the world would be a much friendlier (and tolerant) place.
Here's my opinion on PETA...
Personally, I think wearing fur is stupid too, besides you can get fake, for cheaper, so I never really saw the point. But I'm not so selfabsorbed to think my own opinion trumps others.
To put it in perspective, PETA attacks a seal hunt that happens up here every year (Newfoundland-Canada). Now I have never ate seal... or anything like that. But people do. It's a centuries old controlled hunt (aka the same thing people do in Austrailia for example with Kangaroos) and they want it gone.
They lie to achieve this goal. They say it's vicious clubbing yadda yadda yadda. It's hunting (mostly with hooks actually). They also say the white coated babies die. Actually. That has been illegal for 20 years.
Here's my other problem. Seals are cute. That's subjective though. People raise and slaughter cows, pigs, chickens. Perhaps I think they are cute. But you know, I'm not going to push my values on people.
Anyway a combination of their lying and lack of logic makes me think PETA is just a waste. I hadn't heard that they killed animals they rescued before, that was new information to me. Either way, just adding to an already badly painted picture.
And I agree with people here, I have vegan friends, but they have the logic to realise that they are only responsible for themselves.
I also just remembered they recently released a brutal horror movie-esque commercial where 10 people with clubs beat a person down, very bloody. Beware the Canadians or something. HA!
What about focusing on real wars where people ARE actually being brutally destroyed.
Also, Heather Mill McCartney came here the other year. Arguing with our Premier about the seal hunt. "We came to Newfoundland blah blah blah" Our Premier is as cool as a cucumber "Actually, MA'AM, you're in a studio in PEI, you didn't step foot on Newfoundland."
If you don't know where you are you shouldn't be protesting, that's what I say haha.
Who cares about furs? Furs are tacky and so are te people who wear them. However, I wear at least some leather every day of my life, whether sneakers or belt or boots or chaps, and have done so even during my vegetarian periods.
Being vegan or vegetarian by no means includes supporting PETA or their unbelievably ironic genocide of pets. Maybe someone needs to make a nice Flash game about the PETA kill van, roaming the streets, taking pets from their owners and then injecting them with poison right in the van (actual practice according to court testimony) to reach PETA's real life death toll. You could have a little tally of puppies and kittens with X's for their eyes across the top of the screen indicating how many you've killed on each mission.
I tend to find a lot of PETA people, and people in general with opinions along those kinds of lines just play the dismissal card.
"Oh you just hate vegans/veggies" and stifle all debate by playing the same cards over and over again.
We don't hate PETA because you don't eat meat, we hate you because you butcher animals, firebomb and intimidate people.
I actually have no problems with people who care about animals or are vegetarian or vegans... I have problems with hypocrites, and PETA is full of them.
I played the game for sh*ts and giggles and it was SO funny what they were saying between stages.
"Fur goes on beautiful animals and ugly people."
"Burberry models are too dumb to know better."
Peta makes me laugh and cry at the same time... they don't realize they're no better than a terrorist group or Scientologists. They use violence to get their point across and they spew crap from their mouths.
Terrorisim is bad kids, really. So pleas don't overuse it on everything you don't like. Especially if people don't mess with other people but with things. Seriously things! They put paint on stuff. That is probably illegal and against the interest of the people who the stuff legally belongs to and may of course considered mean or whatever, but terrorism?
That said, PETA still sucks (not the good way).
Not for acting against the fur industry, and not for this game for all that I care. But for generally being more like ignorant hate-preachers craving for attention.
Be that as it may, PETA is not the ALF Justice Department or whatever. Not a bunch of emo kids with a jesus complex that use animals to justify their fascist killing spree and bullying everything that doesn't fit their vegan übermensch ideal. Well OK... maybe they are all that (minus the killing people thing afaik but they certainly don't have a big problem with it).
Anyway, all that isn't displayed in the game. Calling it a TS based solely on the content of the game is purely ideological and widely exaggerated imo. But hey, could be a new genre that put the liberal gamer-friendly media to the test ;)
So enough ranting. While I'm not surprised of the usual flames against veggies and stuff the whole thing wasn't as shallow as I expected from a gamer zine and a fun read overall.
Typical, nobody flamed Veggies at all, my other comment about these terrorists dismissing it by just using the veggie/vegan cards over and over again, and immediately it's played a fourth time, nobody has said a single thing against veggies, nobody, and they still say it..
Generic towed line much?..
For the record, I don't see vandalism (or even assault) at the level depicted in the game as being "terrorism" and would question the judgment of those who do. Being a douchebag and being a terrorist are two different things.
None of which lessens the number of pets PETA kills.