PETA Compared ‘Speciesist’ Language To Racism And Twitter Lost It


This morning PETA is doing the most, per usual. We’ve all seen how far they’ll go to get their point across about respecting animals. We love that and we respect that. We really do. But every now and then they just go too far. Sometimes that means picking on people (who retaliate in the most hilarious ways), and sometimes that means tweeting some wild sh*t that even the most strict vegan has to roast them for on Twitter.

The last scenario is what is currently playing out in the Twittersphere, as PETA took to its account to tweet about how we should remove “speciesist” language — language that is unfriendly to animals — from our vocabularies.

Okay, so “there is more than one way to skin a cat” is kind of an effed up visual. It’s a stretch, but we get it. But then PETA followed up with this malarky:

There is only one word to describe our feelings about this: Nah.

Racist words, homophobic words, ableist words, and other forms of verbal discrimination and hate are just not the same as “anti-animal” language. Animals are important. But the n-word or any other pejorative that describes historically disenfranchised people has a historical context. As such, they’ve done considerably more social and political damage than anyone who declares they need to “grab the bull by the horns” or “kill two birds with one stone.”

Over on Twitter people had fun dissecting how ridiculous PETA is being, with one genius pointing out that there is anti-fruit/veggie language as well:

Some pointed out that the alternatives weren’t much better:

Others lamented how much of a joke PETA has become for tweeting weird stuff like:

And some were just as aggravated as we are with the comparison:

If PETA’s point was really a disguised commentary on how people often champion the elimination of hateful words against others yet continue to actively discriminate against those same groups of people in real life, we’re with it. We’d be the first to admit that yeah, that’s the same as getting rid of these phrases yet still eating meat, wearing fur, having kill shelters, etc. But alas, we’re pretty sure they’re dead serious after this final follow-up:

*Sigh.* Well, we tried to give the benefit of the doubt.