5 ms·

In the west we have “No Animals Were Harmed in the making of …”, which I’m only just learning comes from the American Humane Society: https://en.m.wikipedia.org

In the west we have “No Animals Were Harmed in the making of …”, which I’m only just learning comes from the American Humane Society: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humane_Society#No_Animals_Were_Harmed_Certification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humane_Society#No_A... I had always thought it were a generic phrase!

germinalphrase 1y ago
Tripwiring (and thus fatally wounding) horses was quite a thing back in the day.
- kulahan 1y ago
  Wasn't there some horrible story about the number of animals killed in the filming of Homeward Bound or some similar movie? I simply cannot comprehend the callousness of people towards animals back then. I guess our cultures are simply too different, but it genuinely seems like people saw all animals as "things" until, like, the 1950s or something like that. What the heck?
  - eurleif 1y ago
    You're probably thinking of Milo and Otis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Otis#Animal_welfare_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Oti...
    - kulahan 1y ago
      That’s the one.
  - adriand 1y ago
    > I guess our cultures are simply too different, but it genuinely seems like people saw all animals as "things" until, like, the 1950s or something like that. There’s a weird disconnect where people ignore or are wilfully ignorant of cruelty to animals in industrial food production but are sensitive to it in virtually every other context. I saw a woman the other day who was tending to an injured pigeon and had called animal welfare people to come tend to it. Meanwhile, millions of chickens live in appalling conditions and die horrible deaths en masse. I am genuinely unsure where this disconnect comes from. I was the same for most of my life but a few years ago, I started thinking about the animals I was eating and then I couldn’t eat them any more. I don’t begrudge people their compassion. A few nights ago I went outside to put some stuff on the barbecue and my wife was in the backyard, concerned for the fate of a female cardinal that had flown into our sunroom window. It was stunned and couldn’t fly. Its mate was worriedly flitting through nearby bushes. “That’s so sad,” my wife said. “Yes,” I agreed, and then I put her skewers of meat on the barbecue.
    - petesergeant 1y ago
      > I am genuinely unsure where this disconnect comes from Much easier to sympathise with a live animal that looks like an animal than with a brown rectangle covered in sauce. Also much easier to sympathise with the plight of one entity rather than millions: a GoFundMe for a relatable charity case rather than helping the billions of people worldwide who need it
    - keiferski 1y ago
      It is mostly just proximity and framing. A hurt wild animal is alive and right in front of you. Meat from the grocery store is a prepackaged product that isn’t mentally associated with the bloody process behind the scenes required to get it there. The commercial aspect is pretty dependent on this distancing. Case-in-point: I once stayed in a small town in Morocco for a few weeks. There wasn’t a grocery store nearby, just a market, and if you wanted chicken, they killed it in front of you. Needless to say, being directly confronted with the process…I didn’t eat meat the entire time.
      - cylemons 1y ago
        Also a matter of purpose, killing animals for food is more acceptable than killing them for sport or entertainment
        yurishimo 1y ago
        Exactly this. Meat is a huge source of nutrition. Even though in our modern western society, we might not "need" to eat meat, but it's a hearty, plentiful, accessible protein and fat that stores well and can be easily moved and replicated quickly. It's simply much more practical still to keep eating meat in much of the world. I'm not going to go into the arguments about our biology either, but I think it's safe to say that our bodies are also very finely tuned to eat and process organic (from organisms) meat and use it as fuel. Sure, you can feed your cat a vegan diet or whatever and replace all of the vitamins, but there is no denying that the more "natural" way would be to just eat the meat and be done with it. Many of the arguments for veganism come alongside ideas for better animal welfare, but the two are not mutually exclusive. The only reason we don't eat grandma after she dies is because it's culturally unacceptable. We can apply more respect and reverence to meat production without stopping entirely or pretending that the benefits of eating meat don't exist.
  - pbsd 1y ago
    Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1980) is usually pointed as the movie that caused the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer to be added to subsequent movies.
  - topkai22 1y ago
    You are thinking of Milo and Otis, which incidentally was filmed in Japan. AFAIK nothing was proven, but it got a reputation.
  - gostsamo 1y ago
    I remember reading about a man being accused of mistreating his donkey in somewhere like 1835 Brittan. The case went to a court, but I'm fuzzy on the details.
  - verisimi 1y ago
    Most people think they have developed their principles with reflection and consideration, but in my view most moral principles are post-facto rationalisations used to justify whatever-it-is the person wanted to do. So, excuses to justify the already decided upon action, rather than anything to determine the parameters of action, eg 'the money was too good', 'it smelled so good', etc. Anyway, in answer to why people were callous back then and are so concerned now, I'd say nothing has changed, except what people view the norm to be. What seemed like 'callousness' was possibly considered 'practical' (or 'unsquemish'). For most moral relativists, whether they project 'practicality' or 'kindly concern' is simply an output of what they understand their social norms to be, rather than anything based in genuinely considered and applied principles.
  - jajko 1y ago
    If you travel around the world a bit, ie more remote parts of south east Asia, you will see this attitude towards animals is often still well and alive.
  - nytesky 1y ago
    I think Milo and Otis had a lot of controversy too.
  - GuB-42 1y ago
    > I simply cannot comprehend the callousness of people towards animals back then. Just go to rural areas, where livestock farming is a common activity and people are confronted with animals as part of their daily life and you will see that animals are not always treated kindly. For example, they may treat live chicken like you treat a KFC menu. It is food. When they want to eat chicken, they pick one up in the coop and kill it with the same detachment as you picking up your menu at the counter. Which is ironic because that farmer is probably treating his chicken way better than the ones destined for KFC. Wild animals are just pests, if they cause damage to the crops and livestock, or game if edible. Dogs, horses, etc... are for work, guarding, herding, etc... they get some love, but they are nothing like pets. In that context, animals are indeed more like "things". They still get some consideration, but so are things. Most people care for their cars for instance, they want it stay in good shape for as long as possible, same thing for animals. I think the reason we care more about animals now is because as city dwellers, we don't really live with them, we have pets, we go to zoos or watch cute videos, so we have some unnatural empathy for them. Until they cause problems that is. Empathy for rats tend to go down rather quickly for people with a rat infestation.
- apt-apt-apt-apt 1y ago
  Still happening in 2022, though hopefully the outrage and changes after this incident avoids most future ones. Even the description in the article is really sad. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/asia/south-korea-horse-death-tv-show-intl-hnk-scli https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/asia/south-korea-horse-death-...
talideon 1y ago
And "filmed in front of a live studio audience", which doesn't prevent the addition of laugh tracks.
- Buildstarted 1y ago
  I read a long time ago that Fran Drescher of The Nanny fame was huge in replacing those audiences with extras instead of random people. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/flashback/how-fran-dreschers-stalker-ordeal-forever-changed-how-sitcoms-are-made/news-story/bec34c6ea975c3c139002f6990e9234d https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/flashback/how-fran-...
  - borski 1y ago
    That’s true, but the article also explains it isn’t nefarious; she had a stalker (after past horrible trauma), and was terrified, so replaced the live audiences with extras. It just happened to work so well it caught on and became a mainstay of sitcoms after that.
    - stockresearcher 1y ago
      The Academy Awards can’t even trust the extras to fill empty seats in the audience, so they use lawyers and accountants who have already signed NDAs with the Academy for their day jobs.
kelseyfrog 1y ago
We also have "No one was harmed in the making of this video" and similar, which has become so prevalent that its absence is sometime used to infer that someone was indeed injured or killed in the clip.
- ern 1y ago
  I've seen clips on Reddit where animals are harmed for engagement. Usually "nature is brutal" type clips, where one animal kills another. I mean nature is brutal, but typing down an animal to be consumed by another isn't natural. Anyway, I don't think movies and TV are the main source of animal cruelty anymore.
  - ajxs 1y ago
    When Instagram introduced reels, I started to get exposed to these weird and horrible clips of people 'rescuing' sick and abused animals, and begging for donations. I don't know for certain, but there's lots of clues that these accounts are engineering these encounters. Seeing these clips is genuinely distressing, and it's hard to make Instagram stop showing them. Just another way social media is causing real harm to add to the list, I guess.
  - Frieren 1y ago
    > I've seen clips on Reddit where animals are harmed for engagement. Usually "nature is brutal" type clips, where one animal kills another. Social media is like TV and cinema before regulations. It is full of cruelty, and all kinds of abuse to animals but also to other people. (Recently there was a death related to this). Civilization does not happens without effort from citizens and lawmakers.
- rendaw 1y ago
  The growth of youtube has basically undone that. There's lots of very sketchy youtube/shorts/etc videos out there...
eddythompson80 1y ago
Western YouTubers often say something like this article title whenever they get a large amount of food for a review or something. Rhett and Link say that almost every video.
aidenn0 1y ago
One comedy (I think State and Main) had something like "Only 2 animals were harmed in the production of this film" as a joke in the credits.
CGMthrowaway 1y ago
Certified for free for SAG union productions (funded by the union at $1200/day). A perk of unionized production
- small_scombrus 1y ago
  > funded by the union at $1200/day Haha WHAT That's an insane amount of money to come out of union dues

germinalphrase 1y ago

Tripwiring (and thus fatally wounding) horses was quite a thing back in the day.

kulahan 1y ago
Wasn't there some horrible story about the number of animals killed in the filming of Homeward Bound or some similar movie? I simply cannot comprehend the callousness of people towards animals back then. I guess our cultures are simply too different, but it genuinely seems like people saw all animals as "things" until, like, the 1950s or something like that. What the heck?
- eurleif 1y ago
  You're probably thinking of Milo and Otis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Otis#Animal_welfare_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Oti...
  - kulahan 1y ago
    That’s the one.
- adriand 1y ago
  > I guess our cultures are simply too different, but it genuinely seems like people saw all animals as "things" until, like, the 1950s or something like that. There’s a weird disconnect where people ignore or are wilfully ignorant of cruelty to animals in industrial food production but are sensitive to it in virtually every other context. I saw a woman the other day who was tending to an injured pigeon and had called animal welfare people to come tend to it. Meanwhile, millions of chickens live in appalling conditions and die horrible deaths en masse. I am genuinely unsure where this disconnect comes from. I was the same for most of my life but a few years ago, I started thinking about the animals I was eating and then I couldn’t eat them any more. I don’t begrudge people their compassion. A few nights ago I went outside to put some stuff on the barbecue and my wife was in the backyard, concerned for the fate of a female cardinal that had flown into our sunroom window. It was stunned and couldn’t fly. Its mate was worriedly flitting through nearby bushes. “That’s so sad,” my wife said. “Yes,” I agreed, and then I put her skewers of meat on the barbecue.
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    > I am genuinely unsure where this disconnect comes from Much easier to sympathise with a live animal that looks like an animal than with a brown rectangle covered in sauce. Also much easier to sympathise with the plight of one entity rather than millions: a GoFundMe for a relatable charity case rather than helping the billions of people worldwide who need it
  - keiferski 1y ago
    It is mostly just proximity and framing. A hurt wild animal is alive and right in front of you. Meat from the grocery store is a prepackaged product that isn’t mentally associated with the bloody process behind the scenes required to get it there. The commercial aspect is pretty dependent on this distancing. Case-in-point: I once stayed in a small town in Morocco for a few weeks. There wasn’t a grocery store nearby, just a market, and if you wanted chicken, they killed it in front of you. Needless to say, being directly confronted with the process…I didn’t eat meat the entire time.
    - cylemons 1y ago
      Also a matter of purpose, killing animals for food is more acceptable than killing them for sport or entertainment
      - yurishimo 1y ago
        Exactly this. Meat is a huge source of nutrition. Even though in our modern western society, we might not "need" to eat meat, but it's a hearty, plentiful, accessible protein and fat that stores well and can be easily moved and replicated quickly. It's simply much more practical still to keep eating meat in much of the world. I'm not going to go into the arguments about our biology either, but I think it's safe to say that our bodies are also very finely tuned to eat and process organic (from organisms) meat and use it as fuel. Sure, you can feed your cat a vegan diet or whatever and replace all of the vitamins, but there is no denying that the more "natural" way would be to just eat the meat and be done with it. Many of the arguments for veganism come alongside ideas for better animal welfare, but the two are not mutually exclusive. The only reason we don't eat grandma after she dies is because it's culturally unacceptable. We can apply more respect and reverence to meat production without stopping entirely or pretending that the benefits of eating meat don't exist.
- pbsd 1y ago
  Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1980) is usually pointed as the movie that caused the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer to be added to subsequent movies.
- topkai22 1y ago
  You are thinking of Milo and Otis, which incidentally was filmed in Japan. AFAIK nothing was proven, but it got a reputation.
- gostsamo 1y ago
  I remember reading about a man being accused of mistreating his donkey in somewhere like 1835 Brittan. The case went to a court, but I'm fuzzy on the details.
- verisimi 1y ago
  Most people think they have developed their principles with reflection and consideration, but in my view most moral principles are post-facto rationalisations used to justify whatever-it-is the person wanted to do. So, excuses to justify the already decided upon action, rather than anything to determine the parameters of action, eg 'the money was too good', 'it smelled so good', etc. Anyway, in answer to why people were callous back then and are so concerned now, I'd say nothing has changed, except what people view the norm to be. What seemed like 'callousness' was possibly considered 'practical' (or 'unsquemish'). For most moral relativists, whether they project 'practicality' or 'kindly concern' is simply an output of what they understand their social norms to be, rather than anything based in genuinely considered and applied principles.
- jajko 1y ago
  If you travel around the world a bit, ie more remote parts of south east Asia, you will see this attitude towards animals is often still well and alive.
- nytesky 1y ago
  I think Milo and Otis had a lot of controversy too.
- GuB-42 1y ago
  > I simply cannot comprehend the callousness of people towards animals back then. Just go to rural areas, where livestock farming is a common activity and people are confronted with animals as part of their daily life and you will see that animals are not always treated kindly. For example, they may treat live chicken like you treat a KFC menu. It is food. When they want to eat chicken, they pick one up in the coop and kill it with the same detachment as you picking up your menu at the counter. Which is ironic because that farmer is probably treating his chicken way better than the ones destined for KFC. Wild animals are just pests, if they cause damage to the crops and livestock, or game if edible. Dogs, horses, etc... are for work, guarding, herding, etc... they get some love, but they are nothing like pets. In that context, animals are indeed more like "things". They still get some consideration, but so are things. Most people care for their cars for instance, they want it stay in good shape for as long as possible, same thing for animals. I think the reason we care more about animals now is because as city dwellers, we don't really live with them, we have pets, we go to zoos or watch cute videos, so we have some unnatural empathy for them. Until they cause problems that is. Empathy for rats tend to go down rather quickly for people with a rat infestation.
apt-apt-apt-apt 1y ago
Still happening in 2022, though hopefully the outrage and changes after this incident avoids most future ones. Even the description in the article is really sad. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/asia/south-korea-horse-death-tv-show-intl-hnk-scli https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/asia/south-korea-horse-death-...

talideon 1y ago

And "filmed in front of a live studio audience", which doesn't prevent the addition of laugh tracks.

Buildstarted 1y ago
I read a long time ago that Fran Drescher of The Nanny fame was huge in replacing those audiences with extras instead of random people. https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/flashback/how-fran-dreschers-stalker-ordeal-forever-changed-how-sitcoms-are-made/news-story/bec34c6ea975c3c139002f6990e9234d https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/flashback/how-fran-...
- borski 1y ago
  That’s true, but the article also explains it isn’t nefarious; she had a stalker (after past horrible trauma), and was terrified, so replaced the live audiences with extras. It just happened to work so well it caught on and became a mainstay of sitcoms after that.
  - stockresearcher 1y ago
    The Academy Awards can’t even trust the extras to fill empty seats in the audience, so they use lawyers and accountants who have already signed NDAs with the Academy for their day jobs.

kelseyfrog 1y ago

We also have "No one was harmed in the making of this video" and similar, which has become so prevalent that its absence is sometime used to infer that someone was indeed injured or killed in the clip.

ern 1y ago
I've seen clips on Reddit where animals are harmed for engagement. Usually "nature is brutal" type clips, where one animal kills another. I mean nature is brutal, but typing down an animal to be consumed by another isn't natural. Anyway, I don't think movies and TV are the main source of animal cruelty anymore.
- ajxs 1y ago
  When Instagram introduced reels, I started to get exposed to these weird and horrible clips of people 'rescuing' sick and abused animals, and begging for donations. I don't know for certain, but there's lots of clues that these accounts are engineering these encounters. Seeing these clips is genuinely distressing, and it's hard to make Instagram stop showing them. Just another way social media is causing real harm to add to the list, I guess.
- Frieren 1y ago
  > I've seen clips on Reddit where animals are harmed for engagement. Usually "nature is brutal" type clips, where one animal kills another. Social media is like TV and cinema before regulations. It is full of cruelty, and all kinds of abuse to animals but also to other people. (Recently there was a death related to this). Civilization does not happens without effort from citizens and lawmakers.
rendaw 1y ago
The growth of youtube has basically undone that. There's lots of very sketchy youtube/shorts/etc videos out there...

eddythompson80 1y ago

Western YouTubers often say something like this article title whenever they get a large amount of food for a review or something. Rhett and Link say that almost every video.

aidenn0 1y ago

One comedy (I think State and Main) had something like "Only 2 animals were harmed in the production of this film" as a joke in the credits.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

Certified for free for SAG union productions (funded by the union at $1200/day). A perk of unionized production

small_scombrus 1y ago
> funded by the union at $1200/day Haha WHAT That's an insane amount of money to come out of union dues