McDonald's put me through college... of course at minimum wage, working scalding hot, backbreaking work through the night, I also had to take out about $50,000 in loans as well... So, thanks for very little, Ron.

I couldn't care less about the food now that I don't eat beef or pork, so no I don't support McDonald's.

I SUPPORT PETA, but like Tobi and Alex both mentioned, they give people lots of reasons to dislike them... there are times that they piss me off. I especially agree with Tobi's assertion of fataphobia (though to be fair, I've recently been accused of that as well after some poor word choices on the Lundon Calling podcast, so I guess I can give them the benefit of the doubt).

Tobi, I have to admit I'm totally unfamiliar with the criticisms you're leveling. Other than assuming that one of your criticisms refers to the ad, "Save the Whales, Go Vegetarian."

Honestly, I disagree that that ad is making fun of fat folks. By every objective measure, as a nation, we are growing fat. The gain in average weight for Americans over my lifetime is stunning. I can tell you firsthand, Americans now have a reputation in Europe for being obese: my Irish cousins were surprised upon meeting me that I wasn't fat. It's not an exaggeration to say we have an epidemic of obesity. It is also objectively true that a vegetarian diet is generally more healthy and lower in fat than the average American diet that include meat.

I am not against fat people on moral grounds, nor would I ever make fun of fat people, nor condone such. You know well, however, that many people do; and one common reference is to call fat people, "whales."

IMO, the ad is deliberately invoking that ugly reference, but not necessarily condoning it, in the process hoping to shock people into quitting meat. Whether or not the ad succeeds, is open to serious question. Shock and controversy can be successful tactics in advertising.

Unless you know information I don't, however, claiming that the mentality behind the ad condones condemnation of fat people, especially for moral reasons is, I believe, assuming facts not in evidence.

Put differently, one can aim to shock and risk offending, without condoning the beliefs one deliberately provokes or references. Comedians do it ALL the time. Advertising, on the other hand, does it selectively because the last thing an agency wants to do is offend the potential customers of their corporate clients.

PETA, and this is not news, clearly has no fear of offending pretty much anyone.

"The methods of feeding the population that would meet PETA's requirements would actually result in a food shortage."

As whacked as American idea of portion and diet is, I'm not sure I'd agree with this statement unless you shared with us where you found that.

Food is in abundance in this world, and we have plenty of farm land here in the US to grow food to feed everyone.

Hunger is not a problem of how much food, but how that food is divvied up. Even I eat WAY more than I should when I sit down to a meal (did I REALLY need a whole third of a package of turkey bacon at breakfast?) If food was divided up more equally it would mean I would have to eat a little less, but I wouldn't starve by any means.

I'm similarly skeptical of that statement. I've heard statistics before of how much food and farmland it takes to feed and raise livestock at the large numbers that the industry does. If everyone did go vegetarian, then we would no longer be raising that much livestock, and the grain and farm land that had been feeding them would provide significantly more nutrition than the livestock would.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't find PETA's advertising and "gimmicks", as you call them, merely rude. I find them incredibly offensive. And as a queer, fat, trans-allied woman, your tactics have certainly gotten my attention. They've also guaranteed that I'll never support what you're doing, even though I'm opposed to animal cruelty. Fighting for the ethical treatment of animals shouldn't come at the cost of unethical treatment of people (especially those in already marginalized groups).

Thanks for coming to here to join the conversation. Can you clarify, are you empowered to speak on behalf of PETA? Are you a staff person? A volunteer?

Anyway, I'll say that it's not the gimmicks that bother me. This particular video about McDonalds does the trick fairly well, has some star power, and will certainly get a lot of play in internet humor forums. What bothers me is when you further the oppression of marginalized people as part of getting attention. Choose your gimmicks more carefully. As this video proves, you don't need to exploit trans people, women, people of color, or fat folks in order to get media coverage. In fact, when you lash out at minority populations, it might buy some traction with the mainstream but you're turning off large audiences. Most of my progressive/radical friends refuse to work with PETA for that reason.

Frankly, I agree with your mission statement. Almost all my friends do too. But we won't be able to work together on our common goals if it means being exposed to hostility, ridicule, and prejudice in the process.

well, in defense of PETA, it isn't their fault the horse owners turn their animals loose.

Its the horse owner's problem for disposal. Their queasiness should not be the responsibility of the BLM.

Indeed, given the BLM's record, lol, its probably a worse solution overall.

well, I wouldn't categorize my lack of support for PETA as a blind willingness to support the agribusiness model as currently practiced.

Indeed, I've worked alongside PETA members in some areas seeking to effect sustainable and profitable improvements in the industry.

You are correct -- at this point, I would not be willing to necessarily support PETA more if they changed tacticcs.

My son would, though.