Animal rights activists crash Kim K. book signing

[DrewStevens 5,249]

 

Their intention may not have been to educate, but to shame, and to draw attention to their cause. And I think they successfully did that. 

Non-violent protests like this are not pointless. They bring attention to issues. No one would suggest that isolated protests like this solve a problem, but they serve to bring attention to an issue. Once the issue has been brought to the forefront more serious discussions can be had.

In this case it's the fur trade, but the gay community has been using tactics like this for years. Anita Bryant was pied in the face. Dozens of anti-gay law makers were glitter bombed. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in full nun-drag confronted Pope John Paul II. 

We are talking about about the ethics of wearing fur when we otherwise would not have been. So, they win.

​Well I don't agree with that. I don't agree with this kind of tactics in any kind of situation because I think it only gives bad publicity to the cause. 

I don't really see how anyone who supports the use of fur is going to think "I'm going to join the  because because these guys yelled at Kim Kardashian". I see more people who support the use of it not even wanting to listen the message because they are too distracted by the scandal to even care.

I don't think this kind of things can lead to serious discussions because anyone apart from people who already support the cause takes these people seriously.

Also this is not a non-violet protest. Verbal violence is still violence.

[SKANK 14,288]

​Well I don't agree with that. I don't agree with this kind of tactics in any kind of situation because I think it only gives bad publicity to the cause. 

I don't really see how anyone who supports the use of fur is going to think "I'm going to join the  because because these guys yelled at Kim Kardashian". I see more people who support the use of it not even wanting to listen the message because they are too distracted by the scandal to even care.

I don't think this kind of things can lead to serious discussions because anyone apart from people who already support the cause takes these people seriously.

Also this is not a non-violet protest. Verbal violence is still violence.

 

You are welcome to disagree with me, and I could be wrong in thinking this type of activism is helpful, but it's asinine to suggest that this protest was anything other then non-violent.

Nonviolence - The doctrine, policy, or practice of rejecting violence in favor of peaceful tactics as a means of gainingpolitical objectives.

Satyagraha, nonviolent civil unrest, peaceful non-compliance, whatever you want to call it clearly these activists were not engaging in a violent protest. They didn't threaten Kim's life. Calling someone a disgusting human being is not an act of violence…by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

 

You are welcome to disagree with me, and I could be wrong in thinking this type of activism is helpful, but it's asinine to suggest that this protest was anything other then non-violent.

Nonviolence - The doctrine, policy, or practice of rejecting violence in favor of peaceful tactics as a means of gainingpolitical objectives.

Satyagraha, nonviolent civil unrest, peaceful non-compliance, whatever you want to call it clearly these activists were not engaging in a violent protest. They didn't threaten Kim's life. Calling someone a disgusting human being is not an act of violence…by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

​Well I have to disagree again. Yelling at someone that he or she is a disgusting human being is considered verbal abuse. Namecalling is part of verbal abuse and emotional violence. 

I sounds like an exaggeration but yelling at someone calling them 'disgusting human beings' is not a peaceful tactic. 

 

[SKANK 14,288]

​Well I have to disagree again. Yelling at someone that he or she is a disgusting human being is considered verbal abuse. Namecalling is part of verbal abuse and emotional violence. 

I sounds like an exaggeration but yelling at someone calling them 'disgusting human beings' is not a peaceful tactic. 

 

​

I think it's peculiar that you seem to object more to the "violent" yells of a loud protester then to the literal act of violence required to make a fur coat. Gashing and tearing off the flesh off of a live sentient creature is surely more reprehensible then asking Kim Kardashian to dedicate a signed copy of her collection of selfies to all the dead animals she has worn. 

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 

[Gianni Versace 2,987]

​The reason we dislike Kim so much is because she's shallow, vain and has no discernible talent. She is famous for nothing, the media is so obsessed with her for no real reason, she doesnt offer anything to the arts or the world other than vain pictures of herself and her husband, who is equally as dreadful. She makes everyone struggling to have their talent seen by the world but going no where look bad, she has no idea what the struggle is to achieve what she has, what she so clearly isn't grateful for. I repeat, she's shallow, vain, has no substance and offers nothing to the world, she is what's wrong with society and the world in general. Being beautiful, or what people consider to be beautiful, is not a talent. Sorry but it just isn't. How about Kim goes back to school, gets a degree and actually contributes something to the world? How about that? People like her and her family make my blood boil. Nothing in this world that pi**es me off more than people who get recognition for nothing. 

​Good lord, you seem to really hate her for something out of her control. Why would you dislike Kim for being famous as if it were her choice? She sparked interest in the public (although through somewhat illegitimate ways) and has made a career capitalizing on that interest. There is no reason to dislike her personally because I guarantee you that 99% of people in her position would do the same thing. She's never acted like she's some sort of art or music legend. 

On topic: I don't think people should wear fur but I wouldn't be surprised if Kim ever wore won again. 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

​

I think it's peculiar that you seem to object more to the "violent" yells of a loud protester then to the literal act of violence required to make a fur coat. Gashing and tearing off the flesh off of a live sentient creature is surely more reprehensible then asking Kim Kardashian to dedicate a signed copy of her collection of selfies to all the dead animals she has worn. 

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 

​

Agree to disagree but please don't put words in my mouth. My first post starts with me saying I don't support the use of fur in fashion. I'm discussing about this protest because that's the main topic of this thread and I never criticized the message of this protest but the tactic which was yell at her and calling her a disgusting human being. I don't disagree with protesting at her events, I disagree with being verbally violent towards her.

[Neal 768]

Disgusted by the amount of people in this thread that are condoning the protests. They had no right to go to her own book launch and use it to protest their own agenda. 

God PETA do your own events or something. Embarrasing. I feel bad for Kim, it must be shameful to be subjected to that.

 

[Echo 327]

Mess.

[Creyk 17,817]

She handled it well

[aaronyoji 2,054]

they act as though kim killed and skinned these animals herself and hid in her dungeon and sewed them together like leatherface in the texas chainsaw massacre lolol....

[BillieGOAT 5,216]

I don't get the whole NO FUR ITZ SO BAD OHEMGEE!!!!!!! ANIMALZ R PPL 2!!!!!?!?!?!!!!1!! argument. As long as it's made humanely I don't see the issue.

[Kayla 7,595]

​

I don't think there is wrong with them doing this just for publicity. They are bringing attention to their cause by using a non-violent activism directed at one of the most famous human beings alive. This incident will grab headlines and bring on discussions about the ethics of wearing fur. Are there more productive ways of creating change? No doubt about it. Is this form of activism completely without value? I don't think so. 

It's important to shame proponents of fur, in the same way it's important to shame anti-gay legislators. Animal Rights activists throwing red paint on people who wear fur is the equvilant to Gay Rights activists glitter bombing homophobic politicians. 

I think it's best when any political or social movement is well rounded. For the animal rights movement to be successful I think you need loud aggressive people like this protesting narcissists who wear fur, you need philosophers like Peter Singer approaching animal rights from an intellectual standpoint, and you need legislators taking on the logistics of animal rights from a practical standpoint. There is room for all kinds of people doing what they can to make a difference. 

Sometimes the people giving a voice to the voiceless have annoying voices, but at least they are silent. 

​I think the difference is politicians actually impact the rights gays have. Anti-gay legislators can (and do) turn down bills/laws/etc. that give members of the LGBT community equal rights, so going after them kindof is attacking a root of the problem, or someone who can actually make things change- it's going after the "industry." 
Sure, Kim buying fur is giving money to the fur industry and therefore supporting it, and her image/influence makes it seem "okay" to the public, but the impact of Kim vs. Politician is very different. I feel going after the actual designers or manufacturers of the clothing would be on the same level as going after anti-gay politicians. 

Going after Kim, though...it just seems like stepping on one wasp on your front porch when your goal is to take down the hive- go for the hive, and use the proper equipment.  

[Hola Soraya 4,355]

How Kim actually felt:

 

[LoveandMagic 1,731]

Ugh. I hate "activists" like these. If you have to attack people (which I am against) why not go after the manufacturers and designers? The people that actually make this stuff trendy and accessable, not to mention profit from it. As far as I'm concerned, these kind of activities offer little to no real solution, and makes the wearers look like victims and the offenders look like crazy zealots. I bet if we examined the "activists'" lifestyle, we would find tons of hypocrises (gee, I wonder what their clothing is made out of, what kind of hair and make up products they use, what they eat, etc). Some may support these bully-boy tactics, but I do not, nor will I give any organization that supports this my time or money.

I have far, far more respect for organizations and people that use a more logical, peaceful approach to actually educate by spending their time doing a truly meaningful activity. Everything from passing out free pamplets, to helping organize or construct animal shelters, to speaking at schools, to promoting animal adoption, to animal rescue from mills, to (honest, not sensationalized) documentaries. That is what I respect. Because THOSE people aren't out there with a superiority complex.  Those are the everyday person that sees a problem and are working to resolve it. I know many people tend to find THOSE methods more inspirational and many become eager to help. 

But I wouldn't expect "activists" like these to do any of those things, because all the activities I've listed take actual time, thought, and effort. It's much easier to just scream and throw **** at people.  Grow up children.

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

these peta b****** are so radical and aggressive

 

 

 

 

 

 

it isn't good to fight problems with hate, it's better to solve them with kindness