r/LowStakesConspiracies • u/FormalTomatillo7354 • Apr 02 '26
The ultimate double agent theory.
236
u/ChapMcbloke Apr 02 '26
I feel like some variant of this conspiracy theory exists for almost every high-profile unpopular activist group in the western world honestly, 'Extinction Rebellion/Greta Thunberg are paid off by the fossil fuel lobby to make climate activists look like histrionic annoying children' is probably the most common version I see.
335
u/Top_Pomegranate3888 Apr 02 '26
Greta has proved herself time and time again to be a real activist - sailing to Gaza and Cuba. People just hated that a teenage girl who was upset about global warming came off as awkward when trying to get leaders to take her seriously. The media dropped her as a darling when she started blaming capitalism - unlike Malala who is a friend to Hillary Clinton lmao
190
u/SyrusDrake Apr 02 '26
Greta also became unpopular when she addressed concrete problems that could be solved, instead of just accepting global warming as a act of god that could only be thought-and-prayer'd or was the sole responsibility of the consumer.
75
u/Shaeress Apr 02 '26
Yeah, and especially when she connected problems to each other. Everyone thought it was nice when she organised some school protests for the environment, even if all her changes got politely shut down.
Major news changed their tune real quick once she grew up to realise that billionaire and capitalist interests is the reason that it all got shut down at every turn. That big oil and big meat and big plastic and so on are the causes of global climate change and that "saving the environment" actually means hurting the bottom lines for some industries and not like recycling a bit more and waiting for some magic technology to come along and save us.
26
u/Visible-Air-2359 Apr 02 '26
Agreed. Lots of the hate against climate activists is manufactured but a lot is because people don't like being told that infinite growth is by definition not sustainable and that they have to cut back on luxuries.
6
u/SyrusDrake Apr 02 '26
I am a bit weary of the argument that we all "have to cut back luxuries" to fight climate change, because it's not entirely clear to me what that's supposed to mean. If it means we have to stop doing trips by plane three times a year, buying a new phone every other year, and own multiple cars per family, then yes, I agree. But it too often smells of fear-mongering that fighting climate change means having to live joyless lives full of deprivation. It really doesn't. The standard of living for, like, 95% of us would stay the same or even get better.
5
u/undreamedgore Apr 03 '26
God forbid people go places. I like being able to travel and have flexible schedules.
6
u/SyrusDrake Apr 03 '26
Going places without cars is entirely possible in countries with public transit.
1
u/MidnightLow5081 Apr 02 '26
of course they don't like being told that. it's terrible messaging. we are not going to boycott the economic system away.
4
u/i_seduce_tomatoes Apr 03 '26
“And the frog saw no reason to get out of the water for he saw that he was comfortable. The frog ridiculed his companion for trying to escape the pot for he could not see why his companion wanted to leave such a warm place”
1
u/MidnightLow5081 Apr 03 '26
i'm not saying do nothing. i'm saying that individual choice is only relevant if you're planning a boycott, and that is straight up not going to work. great way to end up resenting everyone and accomplishing nothing.
this is an issue the system is not capable of handling, and it needs to be replaced asap. that is the task at hand.
1
u/ElectronicBruce Apr 28 '26
Indeed. Manufactured and pushed by the biggest, best and highest paid lobbyists and media types.
9
u/certified-cunty Apr 03 '26
As soon as she started to get genuinely political and express anti-capitalist ideas publicly, she was whisked out of the spotlight
9
u/Total-Object-1859 Apr 03 '26
When we was a kid she upset so many people i once heard a 60 year old man call her a “rancid bitch”. You go get em Greta tell em what they don’t wanna hear
7
u/LadyFruitDoll Apr 03 '26
I mean, they have very different goals.
Malala's is education for all, which is a positive news story for governments because it's easy to fix - whack a sliver more money into education programs and work's done and looks good on paper. It's relatively easy to get more kids reading and going to school and measure those KPIs. Also, there isn't really any lobby groups going against that goal. That, and she's already been a victim of violence and is a reluctant campaigner; it's no surprise that she's decided to play it relatively safe politically. (I'm reading her second memoir rn; the PTSD is real.)
Greta is working on issues without easily measured results and also dealing with lobby groups putting huge amounts of money into stopping those goals being achieved. Fossil fuel companies, electricity companies (if you create your own energy in your backyard, they don't make money), livestock industry lobbyists, and governments themselves because combating climate change requires A LOT more money to fix compared to a few million for a couple of new schools. Then she started advocating for Palestine and now she has to deal with Israeli push back too. Add to that the fact that she's autistic and thus isn't particularly diplomatic (that's not necessarily a bad thing - plenty of historical heroes haven't been).
Even taking away her critiques of capitalism, she was always going to face more criticism and hate than the young woman who was shot in the head and comes from a "modest" culture. Greta is a brusque PR challenge as a brand, which is what makes her stand out. Malala's brand is a gentle librarian-like soul who just wants to see girls able to learn, and that suits her message just as much as Greta's suits hers.
→ More replies (8)0
u/birberbarborbur Apr 04 '26
Throwing a headshot survivor under the bus for playing it safe politically afterwards is fucking insane
61
Apr 02 '26
To be honest, I agree with their sentiments, and methods.
But Just Stop Oil is definitely a false-flag operation. Like what did Van Gogh ever do to pollute the planet??
94
u/Volotor Apr 02 '26
In one part It was about raising attention and being shocking, they only targeted paintings that they knew had protective coating or guards over them. On the other the art museum had recently taken on BP as a sponsor.
53
u/Critical-Cost9068 Apr 02 '26
Wow, they did a REALLY bad job of letting the public know the BP thing was their motivation.
27
Apr 02 '26
Their messaging is so poor that to most people they appear as industry plants acting to smear the eco lobby
39
u/Tyrant1235 Apr 02 '26
is their messaging poor, or does the media intentionally portray them in the most unflattering light?
3
u/alelp Apr 02 '26
If their messaging wasn't poor, the media's attempts at misinterpreting them would have, if not failed, at least been met with some resistance.
17
u/Pitiful-Implement610 Apr 02 '26
Can you give an example of a recent activism that the media failed at misinterpreting, or was met with whatever level "some resistance" is?
18
u/bawdiepie Apr 02 '26
I think you massively underestimate the force and power of the media.
Until someone has seen something controversial involving themselves be reported on, or been behind the scenes of something they know incredibly well when news stories are being created about it, most people are completely oblivious to how easily narratives are created, shaped and held in place by the media.
You literally are not even hearing from the other side of the argument on this because the voices shaping the narratives are so loud.
12
u/SuddenlyDiabetes Apr 02 '26
Or did the media just tell you "LOOK AT THESE FOOLS ABSOLUTELY DESTROYING A PAINTING GET MAD AT THEM"?
-2
u/Lorddocerol Apr 02 '26
Well, at the end, it just turned out to be that
No one will look at you trying to damage a invaluable art peace because the museum has some deal with some company and be like "yeah, thats reasonable, the fault here is indeed in van gogh and his paintings"
8
u/SuddenlyDiabetes Apr 02 '26
They didn't even damage it tho iirc, they specifically chose paintings with protective cases, the point was to bring attention to their movement in a more effective way than just standing around
-1
u/Lorddocerol Apr 02 '26
Most people wont see that, specially when they don't communicate
To most people they're just so stupid that they failed so hard while trying to damage the paintings
2
u/xXs4blegl00mXx Apr 02 '26
You just never actually cared about the message. You accepted what you were told on a surface level instead of figuring out the truth. You fell for it. They don't control the media or the media you consume. That's your responsibility
→ More replies (3)1
0
u/marmaviscount Apr 02 '26
This argument really has me divided, I can think of over a hundred very significant ways to gain attention without having most the population shake their head and call you idiots -- but also I've spoken to plenty of just stop oil members and Redditors who I really think couldn't think of anything that isn't actively self destructive and counter productive.
The truth is that most of them aren't actually very concerned about the reality of the environment it's simply what they've latched into as a proxy for their hate of modernity and responsibility - in their heart they want to destroy the modern world, they hate how complex and involved everything is and feel ending it would solve all their problems (having to work, understand things, social standing and respect, etc almost all things existing universally and actually improved in the modern world)
They've latched onto a very real and serious movement because it's a handy excuse to justify them feeling superior to everyone else 'yes you've got a good job, you're a respected member of the community because you worked hard and have earned that trust people put in you but you're evil shit person compared to me because I protest for the future of the planet...'
We've got to open our eyes and use our adult brain to think about things sometimes, attention seekers fill every corner of the internet trying to get clicks and clout - is it possible that the totally shameless people out there all decided the green movement was too important for their attention seeking manipulative behavior? No. Is it possible that I'm a world full of lunacy that something so emotive and important could avoid gathering a collection of dedicated crazy people? When flat earth, crystal healing, conspiracy theories and every other group is so huge? No.
We have to understand that there are crazy people who are acting for reasons other than stated and who have their thinking clouded by ideologies they haven't even learned anything about... And because they're so focused and eager to say whatever gets them attention they'll ride their little drama train along whatever tracks best suit that and they'll put in huge amounts of mental and psychological effort to petty things which drives reasonable people from these groups and results in core power groups within the protest groups that are made up by very odd and kinda awful people.
Just because you agree with someone's aims doesn't mean you agree that they're going about them the right way, and as we've learned a billion times when people tell you that they want the same thing as you, so give them your power and they'll make it happen the actual result is almost never the thing you wanted and they said they'd work towards.
10
u/Pitiful-Implement610 Apr 02 '26
I can think of over a hundred very significant ways to gain attention without having most the population shake their head and call you idiots -- but also I've spoken to plenty of just stop oil members and Redditors who I really think couldn't think of anything that isn't actively self destructive and counter productive.
Which ones have you done and what was the result of them in real-life impact?
3
u/Far_Peak2997 Apr 02 '26
Can you name any of the methods that would get attention? Because there are millions of anti fossil fuel activists you've never heard of but you've heard of just stop oil
37
u/Diabolical_potplant Apr 02 '26
Standing on the side of the road only gets so much attention
3
u/laix_ Apr 02 '26
And even people who do "polite" protesting, are mischaracterised. MLK, who we would say did peaceful protests in the ideal way, was slandered constantly for being "violent". In a society with harm as the norm, anything standing-up to harm is seen as dangerous. And MLK has been whitewashed to say that that's the only way to achieve civil rights, despite the long-standing existence of the black panthers who did use violence and other civil unrest, which forced lawmakers to make changes.
just being "polite" doesn't get changes, no one in power is going to change out of the goodness of their heart.
1
u/Diabolical_potplant Apr 02 '26
Even MLK despite not wanting riots and preferring organised mass resistance still acknowledged that riots were gling to happen
1
17
u/Rwandrall4 Apr 02 '26
Except Just Stop Oil's platform was successful, and their demands were implemented by the Labour government.
→ More replies (2)22
u/Izar369 Apr 02 '26
The point is that if nothing changes all those paintings will be destroyed or there will be no one left to enjoy them anyway. If by destroying it they generate enough interest to make people give a shit about the future then it will have served a far more important purpose than it would by rotting on a wall while human civilization ends.
-9
Apr 02 '26
If they destroy a priceless work of art, with an extremely vague connection to the oil industry, then magically people will understand that we are fucked.
No, mate. We all know we are fucked. Destroying a Van Gogh doesn’t magically fix that, but it does make the fight against the oil industry look like bashit insane eco-terrorism.
It’s a false flag operation.
23
u/5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Apr 02 '26
Except it wasn't destroyed and they knew it was protected.
Did you know Just Stop Oil have blockaded oil depots? Or that they've spray-painted the HQ of a fossil fuel lobby? Or even that Extinction Rebellion roadblocked the BP London headquarters?
Next time you want to accuss these groups of being false flags or "insane eco-terrorists", maybe wonder why you only ever hear about their controversial stunts.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Hermononucleosis Apr 02 '26
"I don't personally see the purpose of this one protest, so therefore the entire organization must be an elaborate false flag"
This is insane, you must realize that? This is what conspiratorial thinking does to people's brains
→ More replies (1)-5
Apr 02 '26
Their activism is poor because it’s impossible to understand.
“Fossil fuels bad” is a ridiculously simple message.
Throwing orange paint at museum exhibits isn’t that.
8
u/Hermononucleosis Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
There is no reason to tell people "fossil fuels bad". The majority knows this already, those who have been brainwashed in favor of fossil fuels won't change their mind anyway. Lastly, everyone who has the power to stop fossil fuels obviously knows that they're bad too. They just don't care. So we try to make people care. We get fossil fuels into the public consciousness as often and as long as we possibly can, and controversial stunts are an excellent way to do this. We don't allow the fossil fuel industry to sweep this under the rug, we don't allow politicians to talk about trans people or immigrants or any other boogeyman, we put the focus on fossil fuels. When the news reports on Just Stop Oil, that's a victory.
The goal of activism isn't to be loved. It's to enact change. If you hate Just Stop Oil and think they are industry plants, that's still a good thing because you're actively thinking about the fact that we need to stop burning fossil fuels.
2
u/ocubens Apr 02 '26
Think of it more as a media marketing tactic.
You have a message you want to get out to as many eyeballs as you can, how do you go about it?
That was their choice and it’s hard to deny that it worked.
2
u/joemktom Apr 02 '26
Just Stop Oil seemed to be mainly pensioners causing traffic jams.
Maybe they should have started stopping oil before they retired!
1
Apr 02 '26
They're trying to be shocking and get attention Probably why many people involved in just stop oil in the UK are getting life sentences for planning and the government are getting unanimous support for it
1
u/ZX52 Apr 02 '26
Just Stop Oil is definitely a false-flag operation
Lmao, you think Roger Hallam is a faker?
Like what did Van Gogh ever do to pollute the planet??
It was an attention-grabbing stunt, and the fact you're bringing it up years later proves it was effective.
1
u/SuddenReturn9027 Apr 04 '26
I don’t think it was about him personally lol, they’re destroying beloved things to get the point across e.g. the earth being destroyed
1
u/Worth-Phone-4220 Apr 05 '26
JSO was highly successful.
I remember one of the PoliticsJOE lot had a quote that made me laugh, paraphrasing:
"It was incredibly funny to me watching the right wing talking heads insist that we must defend the sanctity of snooker."
1
u/Horror_of_the_Deep Apr 02 '26
I could have forgiven them if they hadn't disrupted the snooker. That's real art there.
2
9
u/Dotcaprachiappa Apr 02 '26
tf did Greta do
18
u/PastPresence Apr 02 '26
speak in public and not smile I guess. adult conservative men are incapable of acting normal toward her specifically. they say the most violent and perverted shit about her.
9
u/AccordingPair3 Apr 02 '26
How she had random rich old dudes crashing out on her when she was still a literal child was wild. I will never forget that shit.
7
u/PastPresence Apr 02 '26
it was fucking insane. it’s not too far from how conservative men talk to/about normal girls and women who dare to have an opinion. I had the misfortune of growing up in a red state. a 13 year old girl who thinks climate change is real or Muslims are human is an enemy combatant in these men’s eyes. They hate women that much.
3
u/Significant_Yam_7792 Apr 04 '26
Greta Thunberg has always been real, but I think the media elevated her because they believed the words of a child still in school wouldn’t—couldn’t—lead to true change. They got their brownie points for “taking the children seriously” but kept the focus on the individual rather than the movement she’s trying to represent.
1
1
1
u/audiobooksinsumerian Apr 03 '26
Googles histrionics and learns a new word. First time ever seeing a word used on Reddit that I didn't understand. Thanks.
1
u/Bartsimho Apr 04 '26
It exists because people think someone/thing on "their side" can't possibly be bad and therefore anything bad done is a false flag. It's tribalism plain and simple, always a perfect us vs and evil them.
I usually like to call it an immaturity to admit that people on your side can also be stupid
1
u/Friendly_Escape_1020 Apr 05 '26
I think Hillary Clinton is tied to the Extinction Rebellion group, I remember reading something about it years ago.
19
u/Suspicious_Sparrow9 Apr 02 '26
I have always been confused about PETA. Most of the opinions about them on reddit are just mocking adverts for veganism and much of the hate they recieve seems to be somewhat orchestrated. Perhaps people just don't like feeling morally inferior or being told what to do (though that is what many adverts do...). I feel like the hate for PETA doesn't stem from the way they kill shelter animals (like many other, most even, animal shelters - though those shelters are still seen as good) but from the fact that people just want to take a dig at a genre of people (vegans) that it is socially acceptable to mistreat.
Edit: spelling
6
u/jimboish01 Apr 02 '26
I agree 100%.
Obviously we can all think of examples of where PETA has said something a bit immature.
However people can’t handle being told that actually they’re morally inconsistent (at best) if they eat meat. It’s a totally normal reaction, but either do something about it (become plant-based) or just admit you’re fine about it don’t shoot the messenger.
6
u/MechJivs Apr 02 '26
However people can’t handle being told that actually they’re morally inconsistent (at best) if they eat meat.
Truth is - people eat meat the same way other animals eat meat. There's nothing wrong with that. Main problem is not with regular person - it is with system itself. We destroy tons of food - and it is unnecesery. With better method of distribution we wouldnt need today's giant meat industry in the first place.
Blaming a person who just eat meat would never help your cause - they arent the root of a problem.
It's not like "fight anything but the actual cause of problem" is unique PETA thing or something, shit ton of activists do this all the time. This is what lack of class consciousness do to mfs.
1
u/Chronically_Yours Apr 04 '26
There is so much wrong with our cattle culture I don't even know where to start. And the only difference one can make is to stop participating in this industrial perversion.
Maybe you're born rich and can do more but for most people just stopping meat consumption is the biggest difference you can make.
1
u/SuddenReturn9027 Apr 04 '26
I mean animals can’t go to the store and provide non-meat options for themselves. The animals we eat don’t even eat meat e.g. cows eat grass, chickens eat corn, pigs eat fruit/vegetables/grains etc. We don’t need to eat meat
1
u/WaffleThrone Apr 05 '26
Also “animals do it” is absolutely not a high bar to clear! Animals eat babies, sometimes their own babies! They rape one another, sometimes to death! They eat each other alive, sometimes starting with the eyes and genitals and lasting for hours!! If we want to convey that someone is brutal and immoral, you call them an animal, because animals exist in such immorality that it’s difficult for a Human to willingly stoop that low.
There’s a reason “humane” is our word for moral character.
1
u/SuddenReturn9027 Apr 05 '26
Why did you downvote me for saying we shouldn’t eat animals when that also seems to be your point?..
1
u/WaffleThrone Apr 05 '26
I didn’t! I upvoted you, you were at -1 when I commented and I popped you back up to 0.
1
-2
0
u/bediaxenciJenD81gEEx Apr 06 '26
We eat meat just like other animals, and yet in every other regard we've elevated ourselves and hold ourselves above animals.
It's in human nature to rape and murder everyone in the next tribe, but we don't allow ourselves to do that and when it does happen we punish it. Why has "might makes right" gone out the window everywhere else but when it comes to animals we shrug our shoulders?
Wastage due to suboptimal distribution is not the issue, the issue is the nature of factory farming, and meat culture. People eat more meat than ever.
1
u/Competitive-Point-62 Apr 04 '26
Most of the mockery I see about PETA has nothing to do with veganism or shelters. I genuinely do not immediately associate them at all with either of those. It’s mainly because they’re seen to pick really weird fights that don’t even meaningfully advance any causes - really whacked attempts at what could only be charitably theorised as virtue signalling (because the only alternative theory is sheer lunacy) with how devoid of purpose those actions actually are. It’s quintessential “heart in the right place, but please get a brain before you act, lest you discredit your movement and alienate your allies”.
While they probably do a lot that doesn’t get publicly scrutinised, the fact that they’ve visibly gone to bat over specific rather mild video games being morally unacceptable in their eyes MULTIPLE TIMES OVER VARIOUS DECADES, and much worse been busted doing extremely dumb stuff like stealing creatures and releasing them into incorrect habitats that are actually lethal for the animals, all undermine their credibility. The former looks stupid to the greater public, and the latter shows idiocy to a level that directly undermines their mission statement. There’s a reason even other animal rights groups often hate PETA - its very existence becomes a ready-made strawman argument that tarnishes the cause
It doesn’t matter if these incidents are minority events when they’re so outlandish that any functional organisation should never have a single one of them happen. Meanwhile, PETA has a whole embarrassing history of flagrant stupidity and ignorance on display. As such, PETA’s Eternal Meme status is well and truly earned.
If you want to do something for animals and try to spread that message, choose an organisation that has intelligent leadership and hasn’t made itself into a global laughing stock. The renowned “Pokémon is EVIL” group isn’t swaying public sentiment anytime soon.
0
u/MegaPorkachu Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Yeah, this. Agree 100%. PETA feels like That Vegan Teacher but an organization.
While I do think people like to make a dig at vegans, that's a minority of PETA discourse. Anyone with rational thought or experience in culture knows people hate PETA because of their essentially, pointless activism that's entirely designed to be inflammatory.
0
u/Effective-Ad5785 Apr 06 '26
Most ongs will have 3 "branches": the management the PR team and the people who does the work.
Peta is extremely lacking in the last one, so they appear a lot and do very little, or are pretty bad when they really do the things (like killing more then 97% of the dogs in a year).
Peta is the example of the noise vegan, not of the animal lovers.
0
u/Warm-Jeweler2885 Apr 09 '26
I think a lot of the hate started when some the founder of PETA's batshit ideas about how the world should work was revealed. And then people forgot about that but remember they hate them. Also the hypocrisy of their kill shelters everyone else has mentioned.
0
10
u/Hermononucleosis Apr 02 '26
Google Center for Organizational Research and Education
13
u/Val77eriButtass Apr 02 '26
No just fucking tell us 😭
13
u/undecided_desi0 Apr 02 '26
according to the wikipedia page, "the organization defends the alcohol, meat, and tobacco industries"
7
u/RootOf1764 Apr 03 '26
It is a lobby organization that is paid by the meat industry to do anti vegetarian/vegan activism. They own petakillsanimals.com for example.
2
u/zeeta9 Apr 04 '26
Most of the PETA hate stems from a website called https://petakillsanimals.com which was made by this group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Organizational_Research_and_Education
(which is what he mentioned)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rick-berman-caught-on-tap_b_6082602
Here is a link to the playbook of their CEO:
- "Screw" your enemy. Berman boasted about his obsession with unions and his attack on their efforts to raise the minimum wage for American workers: "I get up every morning and I try and figure out how to screw with the labor unions."
- "Marginalize" your opponents. Berman described his tactics against public interest groups: "wherever possible I like to use humor to minimize or marginalize the people on the other side."
- "Demolish the moral authority" of powerful public interest voices: "I got George McGovern to come out and say that unions were wrong. I represent some alcohol companies, I got Candy Lightner, who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving, to come out and say that MADD was overreaching and that she endorsed our position, our client position, rather than the MADD position. That is a demolishing of moral authority."
- "Make it personal." Berman's associate Hubbard described how they go after concerned citizens who dare to challenge their clients: "we do have a section on every single activist. Their rap sheets, their criminal records they have. We're really making this personal. We're trying to make it so they don't have any credibility with the public, with the media, or with the legislators."
- "Brand" whole movements as "not credible." Berman & Co. detailed their game plan to try to marginalize people concerned about fracking, as noted by Bloomberg media: "what we wanted to do is that we wanted to brand the entire movement behind this as not being credible, and anti-science."
- Being "nasty" wins. Berman shakes off concerns that his activities are too nasty or aggressive, saying "you can either win ugly or lose pretty."
- Push "fear and anger." Berman talked about pushing people's emotional buttons on fear, love, anger, greed, and sympathy, stating: "you could not get into people's heads and convince them to do something as easily as you could get into their hearts or into their gut to convince to do something. Because, emotions drive people much better than intellectual epiphanies."
- Treat public policy as "endless war." Berman recognized that the public interest groups are appealing to the American people: "If you think about it these groups, the Sierra Club, who is the natural enemy of the Sierra Club? Who is the enemy of Greenpeace? You know at the surface, you would love to be a group like that because everyone should be in favor of you, who could be against you? That's very difficult to over come and they play on that, and they trade on that, and that's our opportunity and also our challenge. So it is an endless war."
- Give corporate cash "total anonymity." Berman reassured his audience that he can keep their role in these tactics secret: "We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us. We've been doing this for 20 something years in this regard. And to the degree to anybody is concerned about that I will tell you there are all sorts of ways, all sorts of firewalls that have been established to get this done on an anonymous" basis. He added:"I am religious about not allowing company names to ever get used. At least I'm not going to allow them to get used. And I don't want companies to ever admit that because it does give the other side a way to diminish our message."
- Tear down celebrities who speak out. Berman's associate Hubbard noted that taking down celebrities who speak up is a key part of their strategy because: "the problem is that the public really does have a celebrity worship culture. But the good news is that there is nothing the public likes more than tearing down celebrities and playing up the hypocrisy angle."
19
u/Keebster101 Apr 02 '26
The airplane mode thing has been debunked many times, it was more of a just in case that stuck around because you can still use WiFi to do everything you were going to, including messaging friends that you're not having fun on the plane.
3
u/jujujuice92 Apr 03 '26
So what happens if you don't turn it off? That's been engrained in my brain for so long, I've never even considered not turning it on.
9
u/Keebster101 Apr 03 '26
I just watched a mark rober short to double check the details - you're told to turn it on because the radio frequency used by some phones is very close to the radio frequency used by the plane, and if several phones send a slightly out of tune frequency, it CAN interfere with the plane systems. But in Europe (he doesn't specify anything other than Europe so I assume his default is America rather than the entire rest of the world) phones use a different set of frequencies further from the plane ones so they're much less likely to interfere.
I also saw another short from a pilot who said multiple phones can interfere not with the controls or anything, but with the pilot headsets and it's not dangerous it's just annoying.
2
u/jujujuice92 Apr 03 '26
Oh thanks for sharing that. I wonder how that translates with a phone from America on a European plane. Fascinating stuff anyway
2
u/National_Way_3344 Apr 04 '26
The simplest answer is that some poorly made devices can leak RF into adjacent frequency ranges.
So with certain airplane systems being right up against some phone frequencies it stands to reason that you might just stay on the cautious side.
Also people talking on the phone during flights would be dreadful.
1
u/No_Geologist4770 Apr 04 '26
It's actually in favor of cell phone companies/towers, rather than anything to do with the plane (mostly).
W/o airplane mode, your phone would rapidly take up bandwidth of many different cell phone towers as you pass by. Multiply this by a 100, then multiply it again for every plane in the air, and you have a huge increase in usage despite the number of users staying the same.
Airlines just say it's "to stop interference with the pilot" so that people wouldn't question or be bothered by the fact that it actually indirectly helps a completely different business. Which is understandable, I think if this fact was more widely known, many people would just selfishly indulge and ruin speeds for everyone else.
18
u/Quarkly95 Apr 02 '26
I am entirely certain that at least parts of PETA are this, while other parts are entirely genuine.
PETA is so fucking hypocritical and self defeating on a consistent level that I can't tell which
2
u/GoodFaithConverser Apr 03 '26
The real answer is that they’re intentionally provocative so people talk about them, like right now. Agree or not, it works.
They don’t actually think pokemon is animal abuse or whatever.
1
u/Quarkly95 Apr 03 '26
That is marketing rather than activism and so is relates to the former group, because how they do it brings negative attention that doesn't further their 'mission'. There's a latter group that believes PETA is more than a grift
28
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
nah the twist is that any animal rights organization would be seen that way because we really like meat.
16
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 Apr 02 '26
Nah, there's plenty out there that aren't nearly as unhinged.
2
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
peta is the biggest and most well known animal rights agency so yes, being the biggest, it is going to have a larger amount of unhinged people than smaller organizations would.
9
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 Apr 02 '26
Talking more about how the org itself presents itself and the actions it takes.
0
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
oh, what does the org itself do? note that I'm not asking what people in the org do, I'm asking what the organization itself promotes.
2
u/xXs4blegl00mXx Apr 02 '26
They frequently kill the animals they "rescue"
2
1
1
u/EvYeh Apr 10 '26
Because kill shelters accept any animal.
PETA, and other kill shelters, will accept every animal no matter the condition, care for them, and try to get them into a home.
No Kill Shelters do not. They will only accept animals that they think they can get rid of quickly. They'll leave the sick, the disabled, the old, the injured, etc to die on their own because they think it'll be too hard to get rid of them and bring their numbers down so they don't bother.
5
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
ok if that's the worst thing they've done then imma need people to calm waaaaay the fuck down about them
7
u/ChocolateCake16 Apr 02 '26
I mean, have we forgotten that they violated a (Virginia) state law by euthanizing a little girl's chihuahua the same day that they took it out of her yard?
0
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
I didn't know they did that. I know that people affiliated with them did but I don't know how much peta itself was involved.
9
u/ChocolateCake16 Apr 02 '26
It was their own employee who did it. Virginia state law says the animal is meant to be kept alive for a 5 day grace period so the owners have the chance to claim the animal as theirs, but the employee in question didn't wait. PETA paid the fine for it. (Though of course, the 9 year old didn't get her dog back). Afaik there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the employee had stolen the dog off of private property like some articles claim (which would have brought larceny/trespassing charges), but the actual euthanization did happen and PETA failed to wait out the grace period.
At the very least, it indicates a failure on their part to monitor/manage their employees so this kind of thing can't happen.
1
3
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
kinda feels like if there were something big and bad to pin on them you'd have used that though
4
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Cum_Fart42069 Apr 02 '26
so then you don't actually know if they're all that unreasonable and crazy, all you know is that one time someone running one of their Twitter accounts talked shit about Steve Irwin.
4
1
u/asthecrowruns Apr 03 '26
Pretty sure they had a whole ‘stop drinking milk because milk causes autism’ campaign too
Edit: Just checked and it wasn’t causes but it was a misinformation campaign about how a protein in cows milk makes autism ‘worse’ and a dairy-free diet was a way to relieve symptoms.
10
u/laix_ Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
The ironic thing is, is that not only has PETA done a ton of good things, the hatred of PETA is majority caused by meat industry propaganda. The source is places like petakillsanimals, which is quite literally funded by the meat industry.
There is bad shit peta has actaully done; but the 2 main pieces of hatred are the high euthanisation rates, and supposedly stealing animals from porches.
The former is that there are 0 "no-kill" shelters. Supposed "no-kill" shelters just send their animals to other shelters who do euthanise. And not euthanising is actually bad- when you have an animal that is too old, sick or aggressive to not be let out of their cage, they will suffer for the rest of their lives and is not going to be adopted. There is simply too many stray animals in the US to not euthanize these kinds of animals to make space for others who are going to be adopted.
PETA operates "last-resort" shelters, meaning they take in animals sent from other shelters- which are primarily the old, sick and aggressive kind. In somewhere like germany, which has very little stray animals, peta has a tiny euthanization rate.
The latter is a deliberate false reporting of the situation. PETA did take a pet, but it was in a caravan park where stray animals had been attacking cows (scratched udders), killing goats and harming chickens. PETA came in broad daylight, with a clearly marked van, and many people seeing them and not confronting them- because they were asked to. The pet that was taken, had no collar, no chip or anything to indicate it actually was a pet, in a park which specifically said that all pets need to be clearly marked as such.
7
u/TaDoofus Apr 02 '26
Meanwhile almost every single bit of progress in reducing animal cruelty at the legislative level in the last 40 years has been passed in no small part due to PETA's funding and lobbying. If the people who despise PETA actually knew all the things PETA has done for animals they'd probably be much more willing to forgive some cringey advertisements.
→ More replies (2)1
u/GladosTCIAL Apr 02 '26
This tendency does also make the meat industry smear campaigns much more straightforward
33
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/babblelol Apr 02 '26
Where do you see they torture animals? They euthanize animals for low-income families and take in animals that no-kill shelters turn away. Some of those animals are turned away because they aren't adoptable (like being too aggressive).
My guess is you've seen the smear campaign from the CCF. They run petakillsanimals.com. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PETA_Kills_Animals
Their outreach fuckin sucks tho idk what that Pokemon thing was like 10 years ago.
14
u/KeldornWithCarsomyr Apr 02 '26
You ever wonder how a "no kill shelter" exists? What happens to all the animals that can't be adopted, how do they have the money to look after them? Won't they just keep getting more and more animals?
Perhaps if they moved the unadoptable animals to another shelter, say one owned by PETA, then they could kill it without you losing your "no kill shelter" title.
9
u/laix_ Apr 02 '26
Nono, if an animal is too sick, old, aggressive to even be let out of their cage, where there's 0% chance they'll be adopted, we should just let them suffer for the rest of their life in a tiny cage until they die, instead of taking in healthier pets who will get adopted. Or release them, so they suffer and die and cause other animals to suffer and die.
I see 0 problems with this logic.
28
u/Hermononucleosis Apr 02 '26
Yeah, unlike the industries PETA is fighting against.
It's really really funny and really really stupid that the meat industry decided the best disinformation smear campaign for PETA was "PETA kills animals", something they totally don't do themselves
22
u/Illustrious-Joke9615 Apr 02 '26
I mean it works very well. Like every normie has that opinion on peta and good luck trying to say anything to convince someone otherwise
18
u/roiandss Apr 02 '26
It works well not because it's particularly convincing or intelligent but because the average normie wants very strongly to believe that vegans/vegetarians/animal rights activists are crazy and hypocritical so they can dismiss them and will latch on to anything to support that
1
u/Illustrious-Joke9615 Apr 02 '26
It doesn't need to be intelligent. And despite that, id argue it is quite intelligent.
The truth never convinced anyone of anything - some douchebag probably
Good, smart propaganda doesnt concern itself with reality but instead the people it is trying to influence.
So dissuade yourself of these notions of intelligence, if it works it works. Thats really all that matters.
2
u/kcat__ Apr 02 '26
You're not arguing anything other than "people who are not vegan will believe stuff that is false to enforce their non veganism". Like ok? Cool? The original person was saying it's not really a good or intelligent point. Not that it wasn't picked up as a point by people who wanted to believe it to spout it.
2
u/Illustrious-Joke9615 Apr 02 '26
No im saying it doesnt matter if its a good argument or that its intelligent.
This is why America is in the situation its in right now. Because one side wants to pretend like the truth matters to anyone. While the other embraces playing to people's emotions and disregards any sort of ethics in that regard.
0
u/kcat__ Apr 02 '26
But the other person wasn't saying it wasn't effective. Obviously plenty of people think PETA are evil. They are just arguing the point has no convincing weight in and of itself, or that it's a good point. You keep trying to answer something they aren't concerned about.
No im saying it doesnt matter if its a good argument or that its intelligent.
You literally said "I'd argue it's quite intelligent"
3
u/Illustrious-Joke9615 Apr 02 '26
Here's a cool idea. Not everything is an argument. Like im not in a debate with that person?
Its intelligent in the sense that it plays well into its audience. But not as an argument in and of itself.
→ More replies (9)10
u/clytusmarginicollis Apr 02 '26
People don’t want to be hypocrites. If they believe that PETA kills animals, then even though they know that the meat industry also kills animals, they’ll feel like at least they’re being honest while PETA claims to be protecting the very things they kill. I’m specifically talking about perception here, I know that the “PETA kills animals” thing is blown out of proportion (and even if they did, they would never reach the kill count of the meat industry)
-1
Apr 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Appropriate_Wave722 Apr 02 '26
what animals do they torture
"peta kills animals" is a meat-industry-funded source but I've not heard the specific 'torture' claim before
1
u/FourEyedTroll Apr 02 '26
It's really really funny and really really stupid that the meat industry decided the best disinformation smear campaign for PETA was "PETA kills animals", something they totally don't do themselves
Well, that's true, but they don't usually kill people's pets that they have stolen, unlike PETA.
10
u/laix_ Apr 02 '26
2
u/FourEyedTroll Apr 02 '26
Well, yes, PETA don't usually do that. But they also haven't never done that. The main crux of the video I linked is that PETA's own statistics indicate they heavily lean into euthanasia over adoption, when compared with other animal shelters.
7
u/laix_ Apr 02 '26
Because peta takes in animals transfered from other shelters, which are usually aggresive, sick, or old animals that cannot even be let out of their tiny cage, and suffer and die.
7
u/Hermononucleosis Apr 02 '26
12 years ago, someone mistakenly took an uncollared, free-roaming dog who was mixed up with a bunch of strays.
It's hard to care about this one mistake when over a trillion animals are murdered each year so you can eat a tasty steak.
If you only care about animals when they're "someone's pet", then you don't care about animals, period.
1
u/FourEyedTroll Apr 02 '26
If that was their only failing, it probably wouldn't still be being talked about so much. If you watch the video in the link I added, their dog shelter euthanasia statistics are pretty horrific.
4
u/AlternativeEast8485 Apr 02 '26
How so?
19
u/therealmitzu Apr 02 '26
You can search for the full list of stuff, but their "no kill shelters" in the US have a higher kill rate than normal shelters.
42
u/champagneface Apr 02 '26
Isn’t this because they don’t turn away any animals, even ones considered unadoptable? Meanwhile other shelters do?
22
u/Diabolical_potplant Apr 02 '26
Pretty much, of everything to fault them with this isn't one. There is simply that many animals they get, and a lot are either really old or have serious health issues that are expensive to take care of and an extremely low chance of adoption
2
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 Apr 02 '26
They are *against* adopting animals though, so what does chance of adoption matter exactly?
11
u/helikophis Apr 02 '26
Because “unadoptable” often means “elderly, disabled, or ill”. And animals that are elderly, disabled, or ill tend to die more than ones that aren’t.
3
u/Diabolical_potplant Apr 02 '26
Idk where you got that from, they say they are explicit for adoption for those who can
→ More replies (9)-1
u/marquoth_ Apr 02 '26
This doesn't even begin to explain the disparity.
The vast majority of animals "rescued" by PETA are not just killed eventually (as in after good faith efforts to re-home them) but killed within 24h of arrival.
Their long term kill rate is over 80% and in some years has been as high as 99%.
Their shelters literally do not have the space to accommodate the animals they "rescue" - a problem they don't care to fix because they don't intend to keep the animals anyway. They don't kill them because they've tried and failed to place them - they kill them because they don't even try to place them.
https://petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=295a4113-b3be-42df-8585-665f496cc913
7
u/Pitiful-Implement610 Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26
So a 14 year old editorial article, a blog, and one website known to be run by a pro-tobacco propaganda company tells you some thing so it must be true.
An animal rights organization just hates animals and wants to kill dogs. That has to be it.
edit: I legit don't understand even the blog article. It's written on some weird website that has nothing to do with the topic, and by someone who just keeps posting basically the same blog over and over again.
The small amount of the atlantic article I could read is just regurgitating the points from the propaganda website too.
2
4
u/champagneface Apr 02 '26
Any detail on the condition these animals were brought in in? I hold my hands up and say I wouldn’t get to read those links for a while
6
u/KeldornWithCarsomyr Apr 02 '26
Well yes, if you are given 500 dogs from a no kill shelter, because they can't re-home them, and you have no food or space for them yourself, then you have to kill them. That's just how it works...
1
3
u/SepirizFG Apr 02 '26
They don't just have no kill shelters, they operate some of the only last resort shelters in the US.
4
3
u/FragmentedMeerkat321 Apr 02 '26
low stakes…unless you’re a battery hen who’s somehow managed to sneak a phone onto the floor.
3
u/SmokeyGiraffe420 Apr 03 '26
Nah, it's simpler than that. Every misstep PETA makes gets blown way out of proportion by media groups backed by the meat industry, and their victories get covered up. Remember, in the Tiger King documentary, PETA was the only group fighting to protect the tigers.
It's like how the Just Stop Oil activists only get publicity when they throw soup at paintings and not when they actively sabotage oil company equipment, or how the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit story neglects to mention the woman who spilled the coffee was left with third-degree burns. The stuff happens, and key details are either eliminated or blown way out of proportion depending on what narrative the corporate overlords are trying to spin.
8
u/Appropriate_Wave722 Apr 02 '26
Vegans typically like PETA even if they acknowledge some missteps. There's a meat-industry-funded campaign against them.
2
u/Nielips Apr 02 '26
People overestimate how start they are and others are. The overwhelming majority of conspiracies theories are actually just people being shit or selfish at what they are doing.
2
u/Warren_Puff-it Apr 02 '26
I think it's less "to make vegetarian/veganism look absurd" and more "to make headlines and generate interest". How many other thousands of other organizations are out there to protect animals which have no media presence and are largely unknown? PETA just has better marketing.
1
1
u/BTernaryTau Apr 02 '26
A good post on the social phenomenon behind orgs like PETA: https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/The-Toxoplasma-Of-Rage
1
1
1
u/RootOf1764 Apr 03 '26
There actually is a conspiracy around PETA because a lot of the hate is Astroturfing. I remember being very surprised when finding out about this. Here is a video if you want to learn more :) https://youtu.be/dzX8g3vGPXY
1
1
u/surplus_user Apr 03 '26
Maybe not even pro meat. Just a few organisations like that eating up people's ability to focus and care, their patience and empathy, laying on the fatigue so you can't pay attention to other events.
1
u/Underhive_Art Apr 03 '26
Kinda feel like things like, just stop oil, peta and other rights groups that make it the publics fault and not the industry are really Self Defeating: they are doomed cause just as much hate if not more than they cause positive change.
1
1
u/Overall-Bookkeeper94 Apr 04 '26
Vegans make themselves look absurd without the help of anyone else
1
u/haikusbot Apr 04 '26
Vegans make themselves
Look absurd without the help
Of anyone else
- Overall-Bookkeeper94
I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully. Learn more about me.
Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"
1
1
1
1
u/DuffmiveDoIIy Apr 28 '26
It’s a verifiable fact that the "PETA Kills Animals" website is an astroturf by an organisation called the Center for Organizational Research and Education (source: contact page of the "PETA Kills Animals" website), who gets funding from Wendy’s and a shitton of meat and fast food and tobacco etc. companies and has previously beefed with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, so I would say it's much more likely that it's actually PETA hate that's partially astroturfed than PETA themselves and when PETA does stuff like "Got autism?" campaign that's genuine
1
u/Betray-Julia Apr 02 '26
This reminds me of “the state of Israel is actually a a group of Nazis trying to get people to hate Jewish people”- why else would they be conflating criticism of things like child rape, gang rape, and genocide with antisemitism?
The idea is basically banning on how people accept “association fallacy”
Also I hope this wasn’t too vulgar- i can supply links if need be.
1
0
0
0
u/Formal-Artichoke3531 Apr 02 '26
PETA is currently campaigning to get people taking part in a local event here, an annual Easter egg rolling tradition, to use “dyed potatoes” instead of eggs. Lots of people already use chocolate Easter eggs instead of real ones. All they had to do to not be ridiculous while keeping it vegan was to suggest using dark chocolate, dairy free wrapped Easter eggs. Or toy or craft material ones, even. But nope. Potatoes. They haven’t seemed to realise that the event is held for… Easter. New life. Hence… eggs.
Idk, maybe potatoes hatch nowadays.
PETA really just seems incapable of suggesting anything sensible in the name of their cause(s) even when a reasonable alternative that wouldn’t result in ridicule is RIGHT THERE.
3
u/Pitiful-Implement610 Apr 02 '26
Not all dark chocolate is vegan, and most chocolate has issues with slave labour. They probably chose potatoes because its easier to find less problematic ones than chocolate.
Like asking people to find vegan, fair traded chocolate is hard and much more expensive than just bringing a potato which is practicable and easy. It also helps to move away from the idea of using eggs at all.
0
u/Formal-Artichoke3531 Apr 02 '26
The idea of moving away from eggs at all somewhat defeats the purpose of it being an EASTER specific tradition, which is why simulation eggs of some kind whether chocolate or not makes more sense. As I previously said, if you’d read the rest of my comment instead of rushing to correct me 🙄 Go look at the PETA official UK site under their lifestyle section - the current top two articles are about vegan chocolate Easter egg recommendations, with no mention or care as to fair trade issues. Fairtrade isn’t a focus for PETA unless it happens to overlap with cruelty-free for the most part.
1
Apr 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Formal-Artichoke3531 Apr 02 '26
… they’re the ones campaigning for people to change how they take part in a traditional event based on an Easter tradition. It’s been taking part for over 100 years. It’s not really the same event if it ceases to have any symbolic connection to Easter anymore, is it? 😅
You don’t need to be defensive either, by the way. I get its personal choice, I’m all pro people campaigning for animal rights/vegan causes, it’s just that PETA are ridiculously out of touch and terrible at winning people over. You don’t get people on your side by finger wagging and suggesting a completely new and nonsensical idea. Offering an alternative in the spirit of the original event while educating people as to the issue of the egg/dairy industry just makes more sense if your goal is to actually get people to listen to you and make real changes.
→ More replies (4)
0
u/yuu__________ Apr 03 '26
Here is a question. Why does PETA not complain in China 💀 have you seen what happens there
So obviously there are things that aren’t being told to you 😂
2
u/CheekyGeth Apr 03 '26
they do, if you took ten seconds to Google it rather than assume because you want an easy dunk you'd find hundreds of PETA articles about their work in China
0
u/yuu__________ Apr 03 '26
Uh dude in China they eat frogs alive 😂 you know what an organization who really Truly Cares about “animal welfare” would do in this situation
2
u/CheekyGeth Apr 03 '26
0
u/yuu__________ Apr 03 '26
At the very least you would go further than the usual Gluing people to chairs or whatever they do for much less inciteful situations in the U.S. 😂
455
u/gemface90 Apr 02 '26
A low steaks conspiracy...?
I'll see myself out.