3 ms·
Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy? With 25 thousand facing water shutoffs, PETA offered help for up
by millstone 11y ago
Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy?
With 25 thousand facing water shutoffs, PETA offered help for up to ten people - technically an improvement on the status quo. But they also inserted their own agenda, diverting attention from Detroit's poverty and unemployment issues to the ethics of using animal products. This is definitely a worse outcome for the remaining 25k - 10 Detroit residents. It's fair to consider PETA's hijacking of the issue as a cost imposed on those affected by it.
- ggreer 11y ago> Should we avoid criticizing brutal dictatorships because they are an improvement over anarchy? No, and only an incredibly uncharitable reading of my comment could suggest otherwise. What is it about this topic that makes people go crazy? The examples in the article involved: donating to the homeless, paying people's water bills, and taxi pricing. The comments here have brought up slavery, selling drugs to addicts, and avoiding criticism of brutal dictatorships. Please, try to retain a sense of proportion. It could be argued that outrage over PETA brought more attention to the problems of Detroit. I didn't know about the water shutoff until my Facebook feed was full of PETA hate. But it doesn't matter. People didn't get angry at PETA for "diverting attention." They got angry at PETA because PETA only helped a little bit.