Topic: PETA hates Mario for wearing fur *possibly offensive*

Oh yay. Another guy who doesn't read what people have written. I thought better of you.

Then again you can't really get Australians to think straight for more than five minutes before they recommend wrastlin' with kurockeez.

Well. You're right about that. We're an undisciplined lot, until cricket season, where we sit for five days straight to watch dudes in white throw red balls at other dudes in white.

Crap. Perhaps we are crazy.

Waltz, you need to learn how to choose your battles.

I think the battle to get people to think before reacting is a good one. There's a reason it took me a while to post in this thread - had to sort my own thoughts out first. I had much the same initial reaction as everyone here. And I decided that while I don't agree with PETA, using Nintendo when Nintendo's on a bit of a roll to make a point is a pretty smart move, especially since Nintendo won't be materially affected as a result. There are so few people that are going to stop buying Nintendo products as a result of this that they're not worth considering.

Who would have thought that crazies like PETA could be smart, huh?

Offended? They literally said that "by wearing Tanooki, Mario is sending the message that it’s OK to wear fur". Saying "that's ridiculous" is being offended, having a cry and being immature fanboys? No, it's more like laughing our asses off at the absurdity of the argument PETA were making. Mario wasn't the target? Oh please, how much clearer can the words "Mario is sending the message" be?

PETA have come out now and said it was "all a joke" which is bull I think. If it was a joke then the joke was on them. From a PR perspective all this has done is made a large section of the gaming community, and people who like Mario ARE a large section, think that PETA are even more of a joke. It would be like if Jack Thompson came out and said "the joke's on you! I was totally trolling you guys in order to highlight the problem of Youth Violence".

I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. PETA's message is noble and before this I WAS pissed off about Tanooki fur but now? I'm just thinking about how much of a joke PETA are.

You always say it though. And yeah I did read what you said. Mr. Yellow here likes to use the EDIT button. Your not as sly as you think you are.

Chocobo Journalist doesn't realize that regardless of why, he, and only he, is in the center of this every single time.

Saying "that's ridiculous" is being offended, having a cry and being immature fanboys?

No, of course not. Things like:

The people at the PETA are hypocrites and they aren't even capable of running a brothel!

and

PETA's message is noble and before this ... but now? I'm just thinking about how much of a joke PETA are.

On the other hand clearly indicate that a portion of the audience out there are genuinely upset by this. You don't attack the character of a group of people and their ability to run an organisation (BTW, what on earth makes you think running a brothel is easy?) unless it's hit a raw nerve.

Likewise, you don't completely flip your opinion on animal rights because of an organisation's activities unless that organisation has affected you in some way emotionally. It can be positive (an organisation convinces you to join the cause through a publicity stunt) or negative (this).

You always say it though. And yeah I did read what you said. Mr. Yellow here likes to use the EDIT button. Your not as sly as you think you are.

Just as well. I like to think of myself sly as a racoon, but if I was, Nintendo would kill me and turn me into a hat for Mario.

Chocobo Journalist doesn't realize that regardless of why, he, and only he, is in the center of this every single time.

A bit of a) playing devil's advocate and b) it amuses/ interests me, depending on whether it's an argument or legitimate debate. I prefer the latter, mind.

If people want to take it personally (I don't think that's your problem, but other people seem to), then ok, their life, but it's the Internet and this is a discussion forum. Aside from two notable exceptions I think highly enough of everyone here to actually have these discussions.

Dont you mean full fledged suit? And besides PETA would just jab at Nintendo again for killing another raccoon. Because Nintendo is Satan.

@Waltz: honestly? you're coming into a thread where you know users are going to be kneejerking and expect to see calm, rational statements from everyone — including some of our more intense Nintendo fans as well as people joking around anti-PETA style? and then you set out to take them all at zomg-dead-face-value and harangue them for having their fun? i think the one who needs to grow up is you, lol.

Wouldn't that cause a conflict of interest for Nintendo fanboys? On the one hand they would have to be pissed off with PETA for claiming Nintendo kills raccoons. On the other, they would want to thank Nintendo for killing a Chocobo Raccoon.

you're coming into a thread where you know users are going to be kneejerking and expect to see calm, rational statements from everyone — including some of our more intense Nintendo fans as well as people joking around anti-PETA style?

I didn't expect it, of course. Would have been nice to be surprised for a change, though.

and then you set out to take them all at zomg-dead-face-value and harangue them for having their fun?

I wasn't having a go at people who were just having fun (though the assumption that there are no PETA members at NintendoLife who might have been offended by the generalising going on would certainly warrant another discussion in another place. ). This was for the people who took all of this personally, and actually got upset. If you can honestly prove that the entire population of Nintendo fans between this thread and the two stories on your front page were just having fun, then I freely and unreservedly apologise.

But you and I know that wasn't the case at all. I am sorry for the people who were just having fun if you thought I was including you in what I was saying, though. I thought I made the distinction clearer than I evidently did.

I didn't say that my opinion on animal rights had reversed. Just that I do think their cause is noble and that before this I was already pissed off about Tanooki fur. My point was that all this stunt has done is reminded me how much of a joke PETA are.

Think about this rationally for a second. Who was the target of this campaign and what was it's intention? I'd argue that this was obviously targeted at people who'd read stories about Super Mario 3D Land. The intention was, as far as I can tell, to highlight the problem of Tanooki fur. I think it's fairly clear that they failed.

At best they have made people who would most probably have never brought Tanooki fur slightly more aware of Tanooki fur. At worst they've confused the issue and made a bunch of people think that PETA are out of their minds.

If people chose to take this personally, what's it to you? any time someone so much as breathes an unfavorable opinion of Samurai Warriors, you're all over it making it your personal crusade, so how is this situation any different to people who love Mario games?

_{i get that you're trying to have your version of 'fun' too, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you (and everyone else for that matter) were to attempt making your point(s) without making fun of users here at NL. comments bringing each other's supposed IQs into question or making generalizations about Australians are not kosher; both sides need to cut that BS out.}

either way, i'm betting that's what happened here to make them backpedal so quickly, since that's [backpedaling] something they never do — they probably realized they were confusing and/or alienating their hipster donation base (which grew up playing SMB3 and all) and had to do something to get them to calm down and start towing the company line again, lol.

Think about this rationally for a second. Who was the target of this campaign and what was it's intention? I'd argue that this was obviously targeted at people who'd read stories about Super Mario 3D Land. The intention was, as far as I can tell, to highlight the problem of Tanooki fur. I think it's fairly clear that they failed.

Or just seen pictures of Mario in a Tanooki suit. Which, given Nintendo's current marketing blitz, should be everyone with a TV.

As to how effective it is? To be completely honest, I didn't even realise Tanooki fur was used in fashion. So, completely anecdotally, PETA's campaign worked: awareness has been raised. Do I blame Nintendo? No, and I don't think many rational people would.

At best they have made people who would most probably have never brought Tanooki fur slightly more aware of Tanooki fur. At worst they've confused the issue and made a bunch of people think that PETA are out of their minds.

No. At best (my case, and I don't think I'm unique or special by any measure when it comes to a lack of awareness about what animals go into fashion meat grinders), people are aware that Tanookis are used in clothing.

At worse they've pissed Nintendo fans off, and made themselves look like idiots. Given that Nintendo fans and people who think PETA are insane are not likely to go and slaughter Tanookis just to spite PETA, it's win-win, really. Militant activist groups don't tend to give a flying bleep what people think of them. They want the issues they stand for made public.

Agree 100%

So..... what you're trying to say is that you agree with me?

That's a full-time job.

I'd like to see PETA make a campaign against Tecmo Koei. Might help raise their profile.

Jokes aside, it's not really the same thing. I think people who are overly critical of Samurai Warriors are wrong. Not stupid, not insane, not attacking Tecmo Koei or calling it an immoral company.

PETA may well be wrong. That's not the point I was raising. :-/

_{i get that you're trying to have your version of 'fun' too, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you (and everyone else for that matter) were to attempt making your point(s) without making fun of users here at NL. comments bringing each other's supposed IQs into question or making generalizations about Australians are not kosher; both sides need to cut that BS out.}

Fair call. But making generalisations about Australians is what we do. It's a certified part of our culture. STOP REPRESSING US.

either way, i'm betting that's what happened here to make them backpedal so quickly, since that's [backpedaling] something they never do — they probably realized they were confusing and/or alienating their hipster donation base (which grew up playing SMB3 and all) and had to do something to get them to calm down and start towing the company line again, lol.

They probably figured out what a bad idea it is to upset videogame nerds; i.e they probably discovered Anonymous sniffing around their website

So..... what you're trying to say is that you agree with me?

Sure. You seem to think that that best/ worst dichotomy is unfavourable. I see at as win-win. Unless I've misread you and you think it's win-win as well?

That's a full-time job.

And a lonely one.

No, I think it's unfavorable. Apparently PETA do to considering they've backed away from it.

...and they did specifically target Nintendo by claiming, jokingly or not, that Mario was promoting the Tanooki fur trade. Clearly that's an absurd claim and Nintendo took it seriously enough to send out a standard dry statement refuting the claim. I think there is very strong support for this particular message so it takes a special kind of failure to bugger it up as much as PETA did.

I can't wait for a Skyward Sword themed game from peta.

"Free the birds!"

I think it's worth remembering that this was PETA. You can pretty much look up any story involving PETA and you'll see in the comments vegans trying to distance themselves from whatever crazy stunt they just did. It ALWAYS backfires with PETA.

That's nothing new or unique to PETA. I broadly agree with most of the stuff that Greenpeace stand for but then they go and poison a bunch of GE crops at the CSIRO. Or Wikileaks who did what the journalists are supposed to be doing and then Assange goes maybe a bit too far towards the conspiracy nut end of the scale. I guess what I'm trying to say is that these not for profit activist groups often good intentions but that shouldn't give them immunity from criticism.

PETA: 10% animal rights, 90% internet troll.

And besides, that Tanooki game on their site is sick. They're worsening the situation by exposing children to strong themes of blood and gore in a highly-loved franchise, and the nightmares that ensue. How does that freakin' help the issue?

Skywake, at no stage did Wikileaks handle the information that it received ethically. As a journalist I take great offense to people assuming that's what we're somehow meant to do.

Watergate is how an ethical journalist behaves, not Wikileaks. Assange, at all times, was little better as a journalist than Stephen Glass.