Pet Shop Boys asked to change their name by Peta

[OliX]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009...shop-boys-peta



How far would you go for charity? It used to be considered gallant to sit in a bath of baked beans to raise money, but Pet Shop Boys have been asked to go one step further. Animal rights group Peta have approached them, requesting that the band change their name to the Rescue Shelter Boys, as a protest against the cruel conditions of many pet shops.
"Dear Neil and Chris," begins the letter from Peta Europe, "You have many loyal fans of the Pet Shop Boys here at Peta. We have a request that may at first seem bizarre, but we hope that after considering the following facts, you will understand why we are asking this of you: will you please consider changing your name from the Pet Shop Boys to the Rescue Shelter Boys?" Well, it certainly makes those baked beans seem insignificant.
According to Peta representative Yvonne Taylor, the cuddly image of the pet shop is one that belies the often terrible conditions dogs, cats and even hamsters have to suffer while living in them. "With an emphasis on quantity rather than quality," Taylor writes, "unmonitored genetic defects and personality disorders pass from one generation of puppies and kittens to the next. Many animals end up with abnormalities that result in both heartbreak and high veterinary bills for the unsuspecting people who buy them."
The letter, posted on Pet Shop Boys' website, continues to paint a thoroughly bleak picture of the reality of pet shops before cunningly suggesting that "agreeing to change your name to the Rescue Shelter Boys, you would help raise awareness about the cruelty involved in the pet trade and encourage your millions of fans to consider giving a home to an abandoned or unwanted animal from an animal shelter. So, what do you say?"
Sadly, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe could not comply with Peta's request. But according to a post on their website, they do think the request "raises an issue worth thinking about".

[Raza]

I think 'Resque Shelter Boys' would be a really horrible name. Other 'n that, they've got a good point about pet stores. I come in there to browse collars and such sometimes, it's fairly horrid.

[Mindgames]

"Heavy petting" is also forthwith to be referred to as "Trade in overweight imprisoned animals is a cruelly inappropriate term for intimacy"

[athenahollow]

I think PETA should quit trying to force their views on people, before I decide to go throw pigs blood on their advertising and marketing CEO's.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

They should just go and rename themselves, "The Has-Beens".

As for PETA asking them to change their names, if I was the Pet Shop Boys, I'd change it to "The Seal Clubber's Union".

[DJ Bat]

Sorry, that's taking things a little too far. Sort of shows a desperation for a cause. Any band, especially as successful as PSB to be asked such a thing is placing them in an unfair catch-22.

[OliX]

Kind of ironic how they act in zero tolerance style when they're asking for the tolerance.

[a_small_death]

They should just go and rename themselves, "The Has-Beens".

As for PETA asking them to change their names, if I was the Pet Shop Boys, I'd change it to "The Seal Clubber's Union".

[Morning Glory]

just because you do the opposite of what a stupid person does, doesn't make you smart.

I would dislike Peta a lot more if the people that they speak out against could come up with an intelligent counter-argument.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

just because you do the opposite of what a stupid person does, doesn't make you smart.

I would dislike Peta a lot more if the people that they speak out against could come up with an intelligent counter-argument.

Well, right now their speaking out about a musical group's name. A musical group that's been around more than 20 years with the same said name. A musical group that I'm not sure one person, who has listened to them, ever even gave a second thought to their name. What kind of intelligent counter-argument would you expect to get for such a ludicrous request?

[aXa]

i wouldn't be surprised if peta had somehow already arranged to receive royalty payments if the band had actually changed their name by copyrighting or trademarking it.

the point they make about pet shops is a valid one though.

[Raza]

Kind of ironic how they act in zero tolerance style when they're asking for the tolerance.

Only if you define tolerance for something as not en-masse imprisoning, torturing and killing it, while defining 'zero tolerance' as asking for people to change their terminology...

Iunno. A bit far fetched comparison, imo.


The silly thing about their moves like this one is mostly that it doesn't work. They're perfectly right that speciesism is so ingrained into our social structure that the terminology we use to describe it is heavily loaded against exposing it or otherwise getting a new point about it across, and that this is an obstacle in the path of changing public opinion. The problem is that outright asking people to stop saying things the way they do sounds really unreasonable to the standards of debate we're popularly accustomed to, so it's a poor strategy.

Terminology will change step by step with public opinion. People pick up language through imitation far more than deliberation.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

i wouldn't be surprised if peta had somehow already arranged to receive royalty payments if the band had actually changed their name by copyrighting or trademarking it.

the point they make about pet shops is a valid one though.

Pet shops...Yes. Pet Shop Boys...No.

[OliX]

Only if you define tolerance for something as not en-masse imprisoning, torturing and killing it, while defining 'zero tolerance' as asking for people to change their terminology...

Iunno. A bit far fetched comparison, imo.


The silly thing about their moves like this one is mostly that it doesn't work. They're perfectly right that speciesism is so ingrained into our social structure that the terminology we use to describe it is heavily loaded against exposing it or otherwise getting a new point about it across, and that this is an obstacle in the path of changing public opinion. The problem is that outright asking people to stop saying things the way they do sounds really unreasonable to the standards of debate we're popularly accustomed to, so it's a poor strategy.

Terminology will change step by step with public opinion. People pick up language through imitation far more than deliberation.

Imitation, isn't that a main tool of evolution.

And define tolerance as tolerance and then it might not be so far fetched.

[Raza]

If you leave tolerance so widely defined as to include abstinence from both murder and persistent verbal contradiction it stops meaning anything in a comparison, even if it's technically accurate. If they're not critiquing the same thing they are doing it is not hypocricy, even if both share a catch-all header like 'tolerance'.

You can't say: "They do X even though they're against Y. X and Y are both Z, therefore X=Y, therefore they are hypocritical." It's that distinction between =, == and === again.

[Morning Glory]

What kind of intelligent counter-argument would you expect to get for such a ludicrous request?

I think, "raises an issue worth thinking about" hits on on the head. As opposed to "Peta better not tell me what to do! and for even implying that I might be wrong, I am going to go deliberately out of my way to piss off animal rights activists as much as possible."

Did you ever consider that maybe PETA doesn't really even care about the band's name, but that they are actually doing what the PSB so astutely observed, which is try to bring up a dialogue into everyday conversation and to get people to think about how things that they perceive as innocent are causes of animal suffering.

It's a thin line when it comes to PC hair splitting, but that doesn't mean it's worthless to even think about how our use of language matches our perceptions.

[Raza]

I'm with MG on this. At this point they must know that they aren't getting any popularity out of these anthics; they're clowning around, satisfied to bring up the issues they stand for at their own detriment.

Most people are compulsive centrists. Merely being heard as an 'extremist' on an issue shifts the spectrum of opinions people are aware of to your side; even if you don't convince anybody that your view is the correct one, you're making it seem more acceptable/moderate to have an opinion inbetween yours and what was previously 'normal', and people will respond to that.

I use that trick like, all the time.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

I think, "raises an issue worth thinking about" hits on on the head. As opposed to "Peta better not tell me what to do! and for even implying that I might be wrong, I am going to go deliberately out of my way to piss off animal rights activists as much as possible."

Did you ever consider that maybe PETA doesn't really even care about the band's name, but that they are actually doing what the PSB so astutely observed, which is try to bring up a dialogue into everyday conversation and to get people to think about how things that they perceive as innocent are causes of animal suffering.

It's a thin line when it comes to PC hair splitting, but that doesn't mean it's worthless to even think about how our use of language matches our perceptions.

You know, I can't believe Im doing this, but...As Raza says...****People pick up language through imitation far more than deliberation.****

If PETA wants to bring up the fact that pet shops treat their animals horrendously, then go for it. But for them to take it to the lengths as to tell a band that they should change their name after 20 some odd years, then yes, that becomes irrationally too PC. Especially since nobody has ever once given thought to the band name. YES, it gets PETA in the public's eye, but in the end, for all the wrong reasons. Their irrationality seems to always be their downfall. I would much rather join a group that's sole purpose is to stop wrongful animal pain than to join a group that thinks that any publicity is good publicity. THAT is a entertainer's point of view. Not a group that is supposed to come off a mentally all there.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

I'm with MG on this. At this point they must know that they aren't getting any popularity out of these anthics; they're clowning around, satisfied to bring up the issues they stand for at their own detriment.

Most people are compulsive centrists. Merely being heard as an 'extremist' on an issue shifts the spectrum of opinions people are aware of to your side; even if you don't convince anybody that your view is the correct one, you're making it seem more acceptable/moderate to have an opinion inbetween yours and what was previously 'normal', and people will respond to that.

I use that trick like, all the time.

Possibly, with the soft-minded people. The problem is soft-minded people are often swayed back and forth. The point that you just proved to them can be easily swayed 180 degrees by the cool ice cream man with dreams the size of Mt. Everest.

[inox]

Did you ever consider that maybe PETA doesn't really even care about the band's name, but that they are actually doing what the PSB so astutely observed, which is try to bring up a dialogue into everyday conversation and to get people to think about how things that they perceive as innocent are causes of animal suffering.

I think that in getting publicity for ludicrous requests and initiatives, they undermine their credibility and make themselves less effective in dealing with issues of actual substance.

[Morning Glory]

and I think that your problem is that you feel substance is necessary for effect and that credibility is better for publicity than ludicrity.

To me the problem isn't that PETA is doing the crazy things that they are doing, it's that there really isn't anyone else doing anything about animal rights on such a scale. If we had a lot of really sensible people doing that work on the same scale and drive as PETA does, then even if we didn't agree with it it would be more acceptable and it might help the animals too. Or at the very least we'd be less pissed off about PETA.

It helps if you stop taking people so seriously and instead think of it as post-modern art. Next to Picasso and Andy Warhol should be PETA and Fox News.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

***and I think that your problem is that you feel substance is necessary for effect and that credibility is better for publicity than ludicrity.****

Uhhhhh.....Yeah. When it comes to a serious cause...Definitely. If you want everybody to follow in that cause. Unless, everyone is taking belladonna and your name is Charles Manson.

[Morning Glory]

Among the maxims on Lord Naoshige's wall there was this one: ''Matters of' great concern should be treated lightly.'' Master lttei commented, "Matters of small concern should be treated seriously."

-Yamamoto Tsunemoto

[toxicat]

Thanks for being here, Morning Glory.

[Morning Glory]

what do you mean?

[Raza]

Possibly, with the soft-minded people. The problem is soft-minded people are often swayed back and forth. The point that you just proved to them can be easily swayed 180 degrees by the cool ice cream man with dreams the size of Mt. Everest.

Nah, it works for pretty much everybody. Clever people will be able to rationalize it better, that's all.

And of course it works both ways. That's why it's advantageous only for those well outside the mainstream, whose opinions compete primarily against those everybody has had ample exposure to already.

Uhhhhh.....Yeah. When it comes to a serious cause...Definitely. If you want everybody to follow in that cause. Unless, everyone is taking belladonna and your name is Charles Manson.

You've got waaay too much faith in how people accept information and opinion from one another. Really. We're only an intelligent species by comparison.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Nah, it works for pretty much everybody. Clever people will be able to rationalize it better, that's all.

And of course it works both ways. That's why it's advantageous only for those well outside the mainstream, whose opinions compete primarily against those everybody has had ample exposure to already.


You've got waaay too much faith in how people accept information and opinion from one another. Really. We're only an intelligent species by comparison.

Yeah, but even you, Raza, discuss everything on here in an intelligent, articulate way. Some of the things you say might sound outlandish to certain people, but not ludicrous. Once you take an idea to a ludicrous level, basically it then just becomes a one-sided discussion, with one group talking and the other group not listening.

[LeilaHazlett]

I would dislike Peta a lot more if the people that they speak out against could come up with an intelligent counter-argument.

I would dislike Peta a lot less if they didn't kill over 90% of the animals they claim to rescue.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

[Ajax Knucklebones]

I would dislike Peta a lot less if they didn't kill over 90% of the animals they claim to rescue.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

Maybe I read the reports wrong, but I see that ratio closer to 30% euthanized....

[Morning Glory]

I would dislike Peta a lot less if they didn't kill over 90% of the animals they claim to rescue.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

that's ridiculous, I don't really know why they would make a site that was biased against vegetarianism, but that is what that site does. it's not just PETA, for a supposedly objective consumer reporting, under their food section they have only articles that are opposed to animal rights groups and pro-industrial livestock, they even defend the practice of producing Foi Gras. They also give promotion to an anti-PETA site and applaued Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for saying the same things that they do, how is that for objective reporting? There are tons of reports by real objective institutes that show it's healthier to cut down on meat and to eliminate it from diet altogether, none of them are on that site and they report that all of them are just propaganda.

[keiko]

I can see what PETA's getting at and what they're trying for... buuut... it's just too little too late. It's lazy. They aren't doing anything, they're just trying to talk someone with weight into doing it for them. They're lobbyists. Lobbyists are always a little too enthusiastic about their jobs : talking about things that need attention rather than doing something about it themselves. The thing is it worked. There was a press release, and open letter, an article and a post about it here on BB. Everyone's talking about PETA and the Pet Shop Boys in regards to what a Pet Shop is and what might be wrong with something as innocent as a place to find a furry friend.

Just proves that there's no such thing as bad press.

~K

[inox]

See, for me, I've gotten so tired of their ridiculousness that I don't even bother to think about the things they try to call attention to. I just dismiss them automatically.

On the other hand, if the ASPCA ran a campaign about some wrong, I would look more closely, and might spread the word or throw some small amount of money at the problem.

With PETA, not only do they get ignored, but I see them as extremists who probably need to be hindered in their missions.

[Morning Glory]

It's not like they are vivisecting the vivisectionists.

But I think they should be. After all animal testing is very important work, and so with that knowledge, surely the animal testers would be willing to endure the testing on themselves and their colleagues, for the good of humanity.

[bohoki]

would it be better if thier name was "anus hamster"

[Morning Glory]

Yes.

But probably not in PETA's opinion.

[Thistle Harlequin]

i think that's retarted... PETA is known for going TOO FAR OUT and this is one of them...i wish I knew how to post a GIF of some lady (i forget her name) running up in a Christian Dior fashion show protesting wearing fur, and a model just pushes her off the stage as watchers also help get her down. I'm all for animal rights but they go to extremes!!! and this is just lame, to even ask....ugh..lame

[mystoo]

Hehehehh....funny shit. I love it.

[Skerianne]

PETA is a cult.
i found a peta member and asked him if i can make a leather coat out of him and his friends.
he said no.

[LeilaHazlett]

See, for me, I've gotten so tired of their ridiculousness that I don't even bother to think about the things they try to call attention to. I just dismiss them automatically.

On the other hand, if the ASPCA ran a campaign about some wrong, I would look more closely, and might spread the word or throw some small amount of money at the problem.

With PETA, not only do they get ignored, but I see them as extremists who probably need to be hindered in their missions.

I completly agree. PETA does more harm to the animal rights movement than good in my opinion. No one wants to listen to a bunch of deranged eco-terrorists. I'm a strong supporter of animal rights and have donated to the ASPCA for years since they are actually doing something useful.

[LeilaHazlett]

Maybe I read the reports wrong, but I see that ratio closer to 30% euthanized....

The article I linked to is clearly biased against PETA so the 95% they mention is a bit misleading. For 2008 they took in a total of 10016 animals. Of those 7525 were returned to their original owners. That leaves 2491 animals that were not reclaimed by their owners. Of those 2491 pets 2369 were euthanized by PETA and only 34 were sent to a shelter to have a chance at being adopted. So out of the animals not claimed by the owners 95% were killed.

For an organization that claims to support animals this is really unacceptable. Why does PETA have the money to buy billboards and magazine adds but not have the money to run a shelter? Most shelters are very crowded so the reality is some animals will have to be put down but the number of animals killed by PETA is far beyond that of a shelter. At the shelter I volunteer at most of the animals are adopted within one or two weeks. Very rarely do we have to put them down unless they have sever behavior problems that can't be corrected. I don't know they exact numbers but I can promise they are not putting down anywhere near 90% of the animals they take in.