Was the PETA letter ever proven to be real or a hoax? (re: new sculpts)

[Kyriakin]

With some of the new sculpts being draped with literal animal carcasses, it got me thinking about that letter from PETA to GW that did the rounds a few years ago.

I was never sure if it was 4chan mischief or genuine (we're deep into "Poe's Law" terrtory here), but the letter was requesting the removal of furs from GW sculpts...:

If it was genuine,the letter didn't seem to work too well...

Edited March 5, 2021 by Kyriakin

[RedMax]

5 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

they won't like this.

you don't get it.

This request was written with in mind the world that was, a look like realistic world.

Here we are in the mortal realm, and the wolf in the mortal realm, like many other animals (that we could think that are similar than in real world but are definitively not) sheds its skin.

So this skin had belong to an beast that is perfectly fine, there is no reason to worry for it

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

37 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

With some of the new sculpts being draped with literal animal carcasses, it got me thinking about that letter from PETA to GW that did the rounds a few years ago.

I was never sure if it was 4chan mischief or genuine (we're deep into "Poe's Law" terrtory here), but the letter was requesting the removal of furs from GW sculpts...:

I looked around a bit and you can find the letter on PETA's official website. So yes, it is genuine. Honestly not surprising for PETA, they always pull the dumbest publicity stunts. It's really sad that they are the first name that pops into people's heads when they think about animal wellfare organizations.

[sandlemad]

It wasn't a hoax but it was a publicity stunt, like pretty much everything PETA takes a hand in. It was put forward by deceased genius Inq28 modeller and GW designer Cameron Cornelius. He ginned it up with his wife, who worked for PETA at the time, specifically as a media stunt that would go viral and obviously kept quiet about it to his bosses. It's mentioned in a tribute article in the second issue of 28 magazine.

[Noserenda]

Its classic PETA nonsense, stir up interest with stunts and meanwhile kill as many animals as the can. PETA are scum.

[Maddpainting]

Its real, PETA does this just for PR not to be real. They literally don't care about animals, they only care about PR and money.

[Wraith]

Dear Mz Taylor,

Thank you for bringing to our attention the matter of representation of worn animal fur in model form, and its replication on a number of fictional characters in the Warhammer universe.

To address your first point, that wearing the fur of dead animals takes no skill and thus does nothing to significantly the martial prowess of the characters under contention, is a position that can not be supported under existing game lore. To the contrary, these characters are described as ripping the hides from these beasts after defeating them in battle with nothing but their bare hands,  and thus creating the offending garments as depicted on the models. Clearly this does show a display of martial prowess. Unfortunately, I must dismiss your first claim as without foundation.

As regards your second point, that any product derived from animals is unethical due to the unavoidable cruelty that must accompany that artefact’s production, let me assure you and your organisation that Games Workshop takes the matter of equality and equity very seriously indeed. Games Workshop would not, as a matter of principle,  promote in any way the differential treatments humans and other animals. If I might draw your attention to such characters as Fabius Bile or Necron Flayers, we find their garments are produced from human hides, obtained through truely and deliberately cruel methods. It is clear that the standards to which we subject animals to in our game lore is no different to the standard we subject humans to. There is no inconsistency in unethical treatment between humans and non human animals, and thus we reject your insinuation of any anthrocentricity on our behalf.

I find the clear discrimination inherent in your letter, that is a complete lack of concern for the  of cruel and inhumane treatment of humans, as shown by omission, to be a matter of much greater concern that our depiction of animals products on models of fictional characters. Given the organisation you represent bases it’s claims to ethical validity on the principle that anthrocentric thinking  is descriminarory, could you please explain how placing a different ethical value on one species of animal, in this case Homo sapiens, is not itself an expression of anthrocentric prejudice?

We believe our depiction of the treatment of animals in our fictional lore can be construed as ethical, by the standards of PETA’s own ideology, given depicted treatment is entirely consistent across species including humans. There is no discrimination going on here. I encourage you to critically assess the extent to which your own organisation has been encouraging discrimination between animal species, and thus the normalisation of unethical treatment of animals by our own species, through your assertion of an  ethical difference between humans and other animals. I think it is fair to say that we should expect better from an organisation that aspires to represent animal liberation.

 

Your sincerely,

Some obscure offical,

Adeptus Administratum,

Terra, Imperium of Man.

 

[EccentricCircle]

I'm very much opposed to animal cruelty. But as horrific as the modern fur industry is... Saying that its worse than anything in warhammer is just wrong. 

Necromancy, genocide, humans being flayed alive, blood sacrifices ( by the supposed good guys...) making fur coats is just one of many horrors, and no one is presenting them as aspirational in the way the letter's author seems to think. No one thinks "Im going to wear a fur coat, so I can be more like Horus the heretic, my favourite genocidal maniac of the far future!"

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

16 hours ago, Wraith said:

Dear Mz Taylor,

Thank you for bringing to our attention the matter of representation of worn animal fur in model form, and its replication on a number of fictional characters in the Warhammer universe.

To address your first point, that wearing the fur of dead animals takes no skill and thus does nothing to significantly the martial prowess of the characters under contention, is a position that can not be supported under existing game lore. To the contrary, these characters are described as ripping the hides from these beasts after defeating them in battle with nothing but their bare hands,  and thus creating the offending garments as depicted on the models. Clearly this does show a display of martial prowess. Unfortunately, I must dismiss your first claim as without foundation.

As regards your second point, that any product derived from animals is unethical due to the unavoidable cruelty that must accompany that artefact’s production, let me assure you and your organisation that Games Workshop takes the matter of equality and equity very seriously indeed. Games Workshop would not, as a matter of principle,  promote in any way the differential treatments humans and other animals. If I might draw your attention to such characters as Fabius Bile or Necron Flayers, we find their garments are produced from human hides, obtained through truely and deliberately cruel methods. It is clear that the standards to which we subject animals to in our game lore is no different to the standard we subject humans to. There is no inconsistency in unethical treatment between humans and non human animals, and thus we reject your insinuation of any anthrocentricity on our behalf.

I find the clear discrimination inherent in your letter, that is a complete lack of concern for the  of cruel and inhumane treatment of humans, as shown by omission, to be a matter of much greater concern that our depiction of animals products on models of fictional characters. Given the organisation you represent bases it’s claims to ethical validity on the principle that anthrocentric thinking  is descriminarory, could you please explain how placing a different ethical value on one species of animal, in this case Homo sapiens, is not itself an expression of anthrocentric prejudice?

We believe our depiction of the treatment of animals in our fictional lore can be construed as ethical, by the standards of PETA’s own ideology, given depicted treatment is entirely consistent across species including humans. There is no discrimination going on here. I encourage you to critically assess the extent to which your own organisation has been encouraging discrimination between animal species, and thus the normalisation of unethical treatment of animals by our own species, through your assertion of an  ethical difference between humans and other animals. I think it is fair to say that we should expect better from an organisation that aspires to represent animal liberation.

 

Your sincerely,

Some obscure offical,

Adeptus Administratum,

Terra, Imperium of Man.

 

We can close this thread tbh nothing can beat this

[EccentricCircle]

Actually I think the best thing to come out of the whole letter incident was the satirical news article ( I think on Newsthump or Daily Mash, not sure which).

It covered the story by suggesting that Khorne had read the peta letter, and decided to become a vegan, changing his name to Quorn in the process.

[Random]

PETA also publicly slammed Animal Crossing, a game about living with friendly creatures on an island, because it features fishing and bug catching.

Make no mistake, PETA really is that detached from reality. One of their beliefs is that no human should own animals of any kind, and they rather freeze their "rescued" animals to death, than giving them to shelters and sanctuaries for above mentioned reason, if they can't release them into the wild. They also are against hunting in general, believing that we should just endure any imbalance and damage to natural reserves, or even the extinction of animal species due a surplus or rapid multiplication of invasive species, amongst many other stupid things. If its stupid and signed by PETA, its probably real.

22 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

It covered the story by suggesting that Khorne had read the peta letter, and decided to become a vegan, changing his name to Quorn in the process.

Pure genius.