PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

November 16, 2011 -

Sometimes when someone says something stupid, outlandish or inappropriate the only defense they can use is that it was "just a joke." That's the tune PETA is playing to backpedal away from attacking Mario for wearing a Tanooki-suit with a press release and a web game called Mario Kills Tanooki. Today PETA tells web site Kotaku that the whole campaign was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek." Gamers found it to be more like "foot in mouth" or "head up ass."

"Mario fans: Relax! PETA's game was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, a fun way to call attention to a serious issue, that raccoon dogs are skinned alive for their fur," Shakira Croce, PETA's media coordinator said. "We wish real-life tanukis could fly or swat enemies away with their tails and escape from those who profit from their skins. You can help them by never buying real fur."

We're at least glad to hear that PETA heard gamers when they complained about their latest campaign - which many thought went out of its way to lambaste a beloved icon for no particular reason other than to draw some attention. They certainly got some attention.

Source: Kotaku. Thanks to Andrew Eisen for the tip.

Posted in

Comments

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

It's hard to take it as a joke when it's framed as an attack. There are plenty of ways they could have done this without making it look like they were going after Nintendo and Mario.

"No one really believes that Mario actually kills and skins a raccoon dog for his fur in Super Mario 3D Land,"

That statement is a direct contradiction of the exact thing that their game depicts, i.e. a skinless animal chasing Mario to get its fur back from him. Obviously no one thinks that a fictional character wearing a fictional fur suit actually killed any real animals to acquire said suit, but the implications are clear. They were accusing Nintendo of advocating the wearing of fur.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

That's the thing, they likely did mean it as an attack, which makes it all the sadder. They're only calling it a joke now because so many people are calling them on their BS, especially on a company that often refuses to develop a game featuring a gun like object.

 

Well, there is the crossbow and the zapper, but what I mean is during the developmeny of Super Mario Sunshine, the FLUDD looked like a generic water gun, but they didn't want Mario carrying a gun, so it was changed and changed to a backpack.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

Well, I'm sure "It was just a joke" is the only defense you can fall back on when you're sued for defamation.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

No one sued anyone. I can believe it. A SICK joke, but a joke nonetheless. I didn't find it funny at all. That's why I said, "IGNORE THEM! All they wanted was attention!"

PETA, you are a joke!

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

In my honest opinion Nintendo SHOULD sue so this joke can seriously come around and bit PETA in the ass.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

joke my ass, the only reason they're backing out is because they're getting far more negative attention this time around than usual, as well as were called out for their sheer lack of tact and intelligence in this whole situation.

otherwise it'd be another one of their usual brag jobs after the fact rather than cleanup.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

I'd say that's pretty much it, they're being taken aback that people dare question them on their BS.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

The only reason I'm not buying real fur, is because I can't offored it.

Re: PETA Calls Anti-Mario Campaign 'A Joke'

Well, everyone is laughing.  Granted, they're laughing at you, but they are laughing.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_Skunk"The New Totalitarians Are Here" from The Federalist. http://ow.ly/Pjz3b07/07/2015 - 11:31pm
MattsworknameThere was a time in america when we needed unions and they served a good purpose, but that time hasnt been tbe case for about 20 years or more. The same could be said of our current system for teachers in higher educatoin,but thats a whole nother story07/07/2015 - 10:22pm
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician