Next they’ll be saying I can’t put lipstick on a pig
4 Likes
It’s not even fresh idiocy. PETA was tweeting about this stuff back in 2019 if not earlier.
4 Likes
I’m fine with having alternate idioms. After all, there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
12 Likes
As a nearly life long (started at 15 yo) vegan and animal rights activist I can tell you, PETA is a fucking embarrassment.
8 Likes
“Ants in your pants” is supposed to be cruel to the ants? I mean, it’s not good for them, but it’s not like it’s something exploitative that the person involved wants either. Having any kind of insects in your clothing is generally just an unfortunate accident all around.
I find feathers on the ground all the time, so if birds don’t want me to put them in my hat then they can be more careful with them.
5 Likes
Having quite literally had ants in my pants, fire ants, initially the discomfort was mostly mine. Later, when I located the nest from which they invaded the house, it was all them. I have no sympathy for fire ants. They are invasive evil little jerks
There are some idioms we should stop using. Specifically the ones rooted in racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, and all the various disgusting flavors of bigotry. They perpetuate harmful stereotypes and hurt people
The animal ones? Not so much. The animals don’t care and using them doesn’t perpetuate violence against animals. Not using them isn’t going to make anyone a vegan or animal rights activist.
Full disclosure: I don’t typically use the ones involving violence against cats because my kid gets really offended. Nothing like a literal minded 2 year old to put you in your place.
8 Likes
My cousin works for PETA. Know what they never talk about? Working at PETA. Being vegan comes up frequently. Not PETA.
4 Likes
"Leave the bacon, take the cannoli“
4 Likes
An increasing amount of research is showing that plants, which are themselves living, also have a kind of consciousness and social life. So to celebrate bagels, which are made by killing plants and cooking them in ovens, has to raise some doubts. Should PETA not become PETL, the Ethical Treatment of Life? Enjoy your lunch.
2 Likes
Yes! Bring home the bagel. With egg, cheese, & , ummm, BACON on it!
4 Likes
There sure are a lot of idioms involving animals.
2 Likes
Very true, however you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, it will end up like a dog’s breakfast.
4 Likes
There is a massive and heated debate going on in Germany about gender sensitive language (because in German, many male words are used for people of any gender).
What‘s interesting is that this thread exhibits many of the stereotypical rejections of sensitive language, and very little in terms of actually admitting that even if a specific suggestion might be misguided, the intention might be worth some consideration.
I wonder why that is, because I‘m sure that many people here find being more conscious and considerate to n the use of language a good thing in general. So I find that only natural to extend that to all delightful creatures.
Indeed. But there apparently is something about our relationship with anyways that appears to trigger a lot of knee-jerk reactions here.
Care to share sources that prove this is a systemic thing and not a gross exaggeration based on a very small number of incidents?
I think you don’t mean that to sound like „political correctness gone mad“, right?
However nobody‘s asking you to use language you don’t like. It is more a suggestion that you give this some consideration, and then you might actually see some value in using language that does not reduce animals to things that can be treated carelessly.
It has very much not been a secret for quite some time now.
It’s not that it’s a kneejerk response to any call for any change, it’s that PETA are a bunch of hypocrites of the highest order, and I don’t in theory have a problem with updating and correcting my speech — indeed, I have done exactly that on multiple occasions, continue to do so, and will do in the future — it’s just that I refuse to have my speech policed by those censorious dickheads, in much the same way and for much the same reason that I don’t let the Heritage Foundation police my speech.
11 Likes
I am well aware that PETA runs shelters and kills animals there.
However the original claim I was responding to was:
Its almost as if they didn’t realise that we humans are very good at cognitive dissonance. I know that I am eating animals when I have fish sticks. Renaming them isn’t going to change that.
I wonder whether this is a mode of thinking that is peculiar to English speakers. English is pretty much unique among (at least European) languages in using different names for the animal and its products (the old beef vs cow, pork vs pig story, Normans and all). I think calves are very cute, but when I eat veal, I think of it as Kalbfleisch (literally calf flesh). There’s no disconnect there, and I suspect that someone who has grown up with a language that makes a distinction between animal and meat will maybe overestimate the effect that language has on cognitive dissonance and that if only they could make people think of calves when eating veal, they might stop. Meanwhile, the work lunch sandwich I prepared for today features liverwurst. If only I had a clue from the name that I am eating disgusting livers I would never have that!
6 Likes
Or cream cheese and lox. But I don’t think they actually care about traditional foodways.
3 Likes
It would appear that most people in this thread have given the proposal due consideration, and on reflection, have concluded that it is an incredibly stupid idea, which deserves to be laughed at.
6 Likes
Instead of: Your goose is cooked
Try: You’re dead in the water
Just a little threatening, but in general why should idioms not be modified?
Of course, all of us at PETA will still let sleeping dogs lie, not hurt a fly, watch animal abusers like hawks, and talk about the elephant in the room (who should be with her matriarchal herd).
The breakfast of rocket engineers.
6 Likes
