PETA sure does have a knack for publicity stunts designed to alienate would-be allies.
I've had the thought that PETA might be some sort of false flag organization for the meat industry. Something to make vegetarians look like lunatics so people don't empathize with them too much. The problem is that it has been around for too long, it's more likely that the people in charge of PETA are just plain nuts.
They seem to command a large amount of money, and get to hang out with celebrities. Getting some of those celebrities (exclusively the women, as far as I know) to get naked for reasons that seem to have more to do with aesthetic appeal than any actual message is one of the benefits they presumably enjoy.
Are they nuts, or are they just really good at gaming the system?
So it's all big ploy to get to see Olivia Munn Naked? I mean, not that I would put it past them.
Perhaps they can still get away with hosting murder mystery dinners...
Perhaps they could keep it in character and use it as an abbatoir for their shelter operation.
Looks like a nice mid-century house on the outside, nightmare of cocaine-fueled 80's remodeling on the inside.
This proves it; these PETA jerks are not just nonsensical, they are anti-sense. They thought about acting in a rational, sensible manner, and they rejected it. They have proven beyond any possible doubt that they hate and fear good sense the way a junky hates and fears losing his connection. They are idiocy junkies; they are addicted to acting as stupidly as possible and will go to any lengths to prove they are the least rational people on the planet. Compared to them, Islamic suicide bombers are models of sanity.
Sadly, I think they're wrong about people not being willing to pay to stay there overnight. There's a market out there for haunted house stay-overs, stay overs in crime houses, etc. I think it would seem weird and creepy to cash in on catering to that market, but the market is definitely there.
I knew a person who went to work for PETA headquarters in Virginia. She was a smart lady, a dedicated vegan, and not particularly insane. I asked her about the ridiculous publicity stunts, which seem counterproductive and alienating to allies. She said "you're talking about it aren't you?" It boils down to the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Sure it's a batshit idea, in poor taste, really bizarre and offputting, but how many of us would have though about or mentioned PETA today without this story? I don't know whether any of it is helpful to their broad cause, but it sure is publicity.
Not that it makes any of it sensible or effective, but: quite often it seems that the impression that PETA only wants slender young women getting naked at its events, but that's more down to the media coverage they get. For some inexplicable reason, the only photos that show up in the press feature naked slender young women, whereas a person present at the demonstration/publicity stunt/whatever you want to call it, would actually see protesters of both sexes, and with a much wider range of ages and body types taking part.
Yes, for 5 minutes before I roll my eyes and try to forget PETA ever existed, again.
Their brand is less about being nice to animals and more just being batshit these days.
I understand how these stunts help their organization get press and maybe even the odd donation, but I'm unconvinced that they do anything to win over any converts to their cause. The Westboro Baptist Church didn't have any shortage of press coverage but they didn't exactly get a lot of new recruits either.
I don't relish the role of PETA apologist... but here's my speculation:
I think it's more about being able to tell existing supporters, who are true believers "we're winning / it's working, we're getting plenty of publicity / send us more money" than about bringing in (heh heh) fresh meat (groan... if I had sunglasses in front of me, I'd put them on with a flourish right now, and play something by The Who).
This is a thing that was supposed to be sent directly to William Gibson's head, not be tried to make happen. It's a routing error, clearly.
Interesting, in light of PETA's apparent support for another serial killer.
The December 1999 issue of Genre magazine was one of those annoying profile issues of "100 Men We Love of the Century". One of those included in the "100 Men" was PETA's Dan Mathews.
The person doing the profile of Mathews in turn asked him who Mathews admired among men of the 20th century, and Mathews was quoted as saying that one of the men of the 20th century he loved was,
Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur.
That comment got drowned out in the other PETA craziness, but it did lead to a permanent break between PETA and Naomi Campbell.
Every single time PETA pulls a stunt, they make it that much harder for every single person who cares about animals in any way, shape or form.
Against that travesty, who the hell cares if a couple of PETA spokesmodels get their picture in the media?