Not surprisingly, People for the Extortion, Torture and Abuse of human beings (PETA) distanced themselves from YouTube shooter Nasim Aghdam. A spokesman for the group told The Blast that she appeared at a few demonstrations almost ten years ago and was never heard from again.
Aghdam attended a 2009 PETA protest in San Diego condemning the use of pigs in military-trauma training.
Prior to her death, she had ranted on her YouTube channel against the company accusing YouTube of censoring her videos, most of which focus on animal rights and veganism. Aghdam obviously resented the fact that her account had been de-monetized.
One thing is abundantly clear, Nasim Aghdam was an ideologue like her other fellow animal rights activists. She was a true believer who felt entitled to her platform and when YouTube started stripping her of her claim to fame, she sought revenge.
About a year ago, a columnist with The Atlantic found no basis for PETA’s claim that a vegan diet helps reduce violence. Nasim Aghdam’s veganism sure didn’t prevent her from conducting her heinous act.
9 thoughts on “Despite Connection, PETA Distances Themselves From YouTube Shooter”
Eating meat didn’t stop EVERY OTHER SHOOTER EVER from their acts either so it doesn’t seem like veganism had any part in this shooting does it?
No one ever said it does or did. If you’re vegan, have at it. But you can’t say your diet helps make people less violent. PETA did but it turned out to be false.
Can you provide a link to where Peta claimed that a vegan diet makes people less violent?
I’ve never heard anyone say that.
It’s linked in the last paragraph of the blog post, ma’am.
So do you think that Peta and their claims represent the majority of vegans and the central vegan message?
Or do you think you picked the lowest hanging fruit in the vegan community to make veganism look bad as a whole?
Neither. For the purposes of this post, I’m pointing out their claim that a vegan diet is false while simultaneously ridiculing their assertion and pointing out that the group is distancing themselves from Nasim Aghdam.
I’m also commenting on the fact that Aghdam was an ideologue like her fellow activists who felt entitled to their platform. It just so happens she was a vegan.
Every single report on this shooting (we’re talking hundreds of articles) mentions that the shooter is vegan in the title; My question is why is it pertinent?
Because Aghdam was an ideologue and her veganism was sacrosanct. A part of her human-hating ideology. In order to understand the motivations of someone like her their primary incitations have to be made known.
Comments are closed.