Grimes @ FYF Fest 2014

The past few weeks have seen celebrities big and small participate in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, from the Foo Fighters to Weird Al. When Grimes was called out by electronic musician Richie Hawtin, the eco- and animal-friendly artist refused and posted on her Tumblr explaining her reasoning. “I would like to say that I don’t feel great about wasting water in this California drought, but I will donate money. However I will not donate money to this foundation because of their record of testing on animals.” Pamela Anderson also refused the challenge because of the foundation’s animal testing policy. Read Grimes’ full post below.

Haha okay, richie is probably the nicest and coolest person I’ve ever met so i can’t really refuse him. however, I would like to say that I don’t feel great about wasting water in this california drought, but i will donate money. However I will not donate money to this foundation because of their record of testing on animals, but I will donate money to the Malala fund because education is the key to ending almost every issue that faces humanity and our world today. yep yep! do i have to make a video to nominate other people? if so I’ll do that later, but in the mean time Im calling out Detroit madness, Hana pestle and Blood diamonds

[Photo via MarnieTheDog.]

Tags:  
Comments (96)
  1. Gelth  |   Posted on Aug 24th +13

    But it’s ok if they test on humans. To, you know, find cures for ALS.

  2. She is a true definition of a hipster.

    • What’s “hip” about having an opinion? Sad that you don’t seem to have one.

      • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

      • So instead of supporting an organization she has a conflict with the way they do their testing based on her loving all sentient beings not just the species she is part of, she somehow is some elitist trend follower? She donated to a great cause either way so I dont see the cynicism usually that would somehow negate action versus shift and make aware of another cause as equally as important to her.

        She is definitely entitled to her beliefs and even though I don’t follow them(yet) I know I am at least wrong and hope to resolve that contradiction soon.

        I believe education is the key to curing all of humanity’s woes as well and can be done without even having to shoot someone and for way cheaper than that if anyone wants to monetize or analyze profitability if whether we should care.

  3. Would you kill a rat to save your mother’s life? If so, how many? What about a dog? How about a bunch of dogs?

    • yes, alot. yes, yes

    • Yes I would kill a rat if it would save my mothers life, I would kill how ever many it to took rid this world of cancer once and for all. Sadly she died before I knew how many rats it would take. I’m not so sure that they test on dogs but if they do and if they told me that the answer may be in the genes of a dog, as much as I love dogs and pretty much any animal (exception is cats) then my answer again would be yes if it will save the life of a child or another human being then by all means I agree. So hey Grimes, shut up and do what you do best, making people shiver every time they hear a word coming from your mouth.

      • Yeah, how dare she express her opinion, she should shut her mouth and be a good obedient musician.

        For the record, I disagree with her, and am disappointed when people don’t understand that animal testing is still sadly necessary when it comes to medical research. But that doesn’t mean she deserves some of the abuse/derisive comments I’m already seeing here.

        • The thing is – animal testing does NOT by any means do as much good as farmaceutical entities and corporations want to make people believe. There is a lot in common between animals and people (we are, after all, animals as well), and although we might have biological similarities, there are crucial differences. The reactions animals have when submitted to certain chemical substances are considerably different from the ones humans would have.

          I invite everyone who doesn’t know much about the subject – or who simply disagrees with my opinion – to read this article. And please do not think it’s biased because it was made by PETA. You can see by the sources that it is very coherent and believable:

          http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

          • but it is biased ! how do you imagine Louis Pasteur elaborates his vaccines ? there is no getting away from facts..I think PETA have the best of intentions but they have no sense of pragmatism.

      • And if the “researchers” never find a cure, would all that killing be worth it? I would suggest that the Just thing to do then would be to prosecute all the “researchers” and their financial supporters for torturing animals.

        The power of humans to excuse their cruelty is astounding.

      • I love how the ignorant try to justify things by saying would you kill a rat if it would save your mothers life…….well I see the logic yes anybody would the only problem is millions of animals are tested on to “find a cure” yet no cure is ever found and even when they find things that do work on said animal being tested on their genetic makeup isnt the same as ours so it ends up being a waste of time and pointless. Why not cut out all the bullshit and time wasting and if they think they have an idea on something that might work I’m sure someone currently dying from that ailment would be more than happy to volunteer to see if it works on them why wouldnt they if they are going to die anyways if something isnt found. Testing on animals is basically just people in a lab throwing anything on the lab animal and saying lets see if this works…..throws 100k volts of electricity into a lab rat……….nope that didnt work….lets try this…..etc etc its not science because science would have some sort of theory on why said experiment might work and how they came to that conclusion if they are so sure about their research why not try it on someone that would truelly tell them if they were on to something or not. What would they have to lose they gonna die if it doesnt work anyways.

    • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • I don’t have a firm opinion on animal testing, but I don’t think the ethical issues are so simple. If it were really the case that every animal killed = 1 person saved then the objection to testing would be quite difficult to justify. But there’s lots of research done that inflicts a great deal of pain on animals throughout their entire lives (not just a quick, painless death), requires many animals to die, and in the end doesn’t yield anything more than a slightly more nuanced understanding of the disease, or allows us to cross one potential cause or treatment off the list. In that case, it’s not so clear that the animal suffered/died for a good reason.

      So while I would never argue that testing on animals is *always* wrong, I do think it depends on the nature of the testing, what benefits can realistically be expected. I don’t think people will ever value animals lives as much as another human’s, but I don’t think animal’s lives are totally without value either. So I do think that we should be rather more strict about when and how animals can be used in tests.

      • They’re plenty strict as it is, the rules on this stuff (certainly in the UK and US) are very tight indeed.

        • I don’t know how the laws are in the UK, but in the US the Department of Agriculture just requires institutions to have their own committees, and there is really no consistency or reliability to their decisions whatsoever. So while there is a fair amount of bureaucracy surround animal testing, I wouldn’t exactly call it strict regulation.

          • thats so fuckin untrue, read before writing! most people here dont have a clue about what science is, how its done and the regulation, its actually very difficult to have your animal testing protocol approved in the US… IACCUC anyone?

          • I know what IACUC is… do you? You didn’t even spell it properly. And the whole point I was trying to make is that every university, every corporation, every organization that wants to do animal testing makes its own IACUC group and that’s how it’s decided if a test can go through or not. In 2005, the Department of Agriculture did an audit and found that lots of IACUC boards were approving tests that did not comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Another study (from 2001) found that there is basically no consistency – what gets rejected by one IACUC group may well be approved by another. So once again, having lots of red tape for researchers =/= effective regulation or oversight.

          • Thanks for this strong counter-argument on my misplacing another C in the name. Thanks also for cut-pasting the Wikipedia page proving that you don’t know what you are talking about. And yes I do know the matter very well, enough at least to know that many progress have been made regarding the use of animals in research and progress are going to keep on happening. Unfortunately these progress wont be hindered by stupid celebrity comments who don’t know what they are talking about. We still need animals to progress our understanding of the world, that’s sad but that’s fact. Computational models, stem cells, bioinformatics are aready helping us to decrease that need and someday we will hopefully do without animals. Meanwhile it would be great If activists spent their useful time for better aims than striking with monkey experiment pictures from the 70′s… like pressuring countries who don’t have mandatory animal ethical commitees.. like, for example, France.
            Make sure you correct my grammar.

    • just because you can doesn’t make it right. life is a life shouldn’t be treated any differently based on rational. why cause it all just boils down to shitty politics & politicians. if there were any other “intelligent” life forms out there and they assumed they same of us how would we feel ?

    • Reluctantly yes, ditto, ditto.

    • I would not want any animals killed or made to suffer ..to save my life….and neither would have my mother.

  4. Ah, very good Grimes. Exactly the right time and place to stand up for your beliefs. Is she in high school, or what?

    • Are you, or what? It’s the perfect time to stand up for animals rights whenever you have the possibility to be listened to.
      Why does everyone think that a human life has more value than the life of an animal?
      Everyone who agrees on that is a fuckin stupid and ignorant person.

      • This. A life is a life, be it animal or human. It’s sick that people don’t value the life of an animal, just because it can’t protest against abuse.

        • So how do the two of you suggest researchers do their work? Computer modelling can’t fully replace animal testing right now. And no, you can’t take the Daily Mail-style answer of ‘test them out on criminals’ or something.

          • Investing more into model technology. I know animal testing can’t be replaced anytime soon, but the earlier it can, the better. Stricter regulations and testing before risking an animal’s life would be a good starting point.

          • There’s tons of start-ups researching micro technology that can simulate human systems–not to mention that they are more effective than animal testing, which only predicts human response about 30% of the time.

        • Where do you draw the line? A fish? A spider? A fly? The millions of tiny organisms you kill every time you put one foot in front of the other?

          Or is it a prerequisite that the animal looks similar enough to you that you can effectively empathize with it or project human-like emotions onto it?

      • Some believe the life of a rat, mouse, cat, dog, pig, cow, etc. holds the same intrinsic value as you, your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, and your children. Many don’t hold this belief. I don’t know if it’d be fair to characterize either as “fuckin’ stupid and ignorant.” Either way you’ve gotta deal with the consequences of your actions.

      • “Why does everyone think that a human life has more value than the life of an animal?”

        Probably because humans have cognitive abilities that are sophisticated enough to allow us to abstract and conceptualize ourselves in ways that make us conscious of our own existence to a much higher degree than animals, and allow us to reflect and make decisions beyond pure instinct and conditioning.

        • What is preventing you, then, from eating your pet when it dies? Do pets only exist as gadgets or trinkets to make us appear “better” to other humans–i.e. wealthier, privileged, or compassionate?

          • The fact that we become attached to our pets has much to do with human psychology and very little to do with any objective value, cognitive or otherwise, that the pet may have.

            I’m not trying to say that animals are without worth or that we shouldn’t try to minimize their suffering whenever we’re able. As the de facto caretakers of the planet we have a moral responsibility to do just that. But to compare a human life to that of an animal’s is insane.

      • you are off topic it is not a matter of value, it is a matter of rights and the days animals have the same rights than humans, there will another philosophical problem.better stop animal tests and the science stops its progress with all the consequences it involves ? I talk about your father, your mother, your sister your brother your lover your friends etc …I think you would face a great dilemma

  5. cast  |   Posted on Aug 24th +15

    She is entitled to have her own opinion and I respect that. It is also good that she is donating to a cause she believes in.

    I love animals and we should absolutely value their lives whether it be a mice, bunny, or anything else. Life is precious in all forms. Finding a cure for these diseases is important. Modern medicine has its drawbacks. Many that I’d argue we still haven’t figured out or felt yet but it has saved countless lives.

    Many animals in medical testing die without contributing a substantial information and that just plain sucks, but in the world of medicine this kind of testing is necessary. It bothers me and I hope one day theres an alternative.

    • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

      • cast  |   Posted on Aug 24th +2

        I don’t see how my diet relates to this article or my love of animals. Yes I eat animals. Does that make me incapable of loving them? No.

        • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

          • cast  |   Posted on Aug 24th +5

            No disrespect but these issues aren’t white and black. My relationship with animals does not revolve around a single issue (ie: my diet). I have volunteered with shelters and various other animal organizations. I move turtles off the road if I see one. I play with dogs and cats before they are euthanized. Yes, I appreciate animals but I also love animals.

            If you think just because I enjoy fried chicken that I can only “appreciate” and can’t love animals then frankly you are close minded and judgmental.

          • abat33 has been mega downvoted for speaking the absolute truth:

            eating animals =/= loving animals

            If you can’t see that cast… man… it’s not even ignorance or close mindedness it’s a whole new level of madness. Cast I think that loving animals is a great thing and I think you’re almost there, please read Peter Singer “Equality for Animals?” immediately. I’ll even send you a link.

            http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1979—-.htm

            Much love.

          • Cast, just wanted to tell you to ignore the haters. I am a vegetarian because I think the way animals are treated in factory farms is unacceptable. But I applaud anyone who recognizes the value of an animal’s well-being and makes changes to their own life to reflect that. The truth is, all of us could do more. I could be a vegan instead of a vegetarian. Maybe some of the people downvoting you are vegans already, but are they going to dedicate their career to animal welfare? Or their free time? To me, advocating for animals is not about dragging people until they comply with a set of pre-dictated life-style choices. It’s about encouraging a change in our sensibility toward animals and getting as many people as possible to recognize their worth. I do hope that one day this leads to a radical change of the meat industry, or else its elimination. But anyone who gives their free time to help in shelters and sticks up for animals’ rights is on the right team in my book.

            We are all complex people with our own lives to live. It’s not about having philosophically the most consistent principles, it’s about making the changes you can in your own life and your own outlook. So thanks for doing what you do!

          • Jessie, if you really believe Pete Singer’s philosophy, then:

            1) Every time you use a free second on Facebook instead of going to volunteer somewhere you are doing something morally wrong.
            2) Every time you spend a free dollar on a concert or CD instead of donating to charity you are doing something morally wrong.
            3) If your career is anything other than full-time advocacy or philanthropy for some group of people or animals that is suffering a great deal, you are doing something morally wrong.

            I think there are so many great reasons to stick up for animals, but utilitarianism is a pretty stupid philosophy and no one actually makes decisions that way, and no I don’t think the world would be a better place if we did.

          • Dansolo what you said about Peter Singer is inaccurate. I saw an interviewer with him once and the interviewer asked him to very crudely estimate how much the average person should be donating to causes that relieve suffering, he said the average, middle to upper middle class person should be donating roughly 30% of their total income.

            I make monthly donations but it is at less than 30%.

            ‘utilitarianism is a pretty stupid philosophy and no one actually makes decisions that way’ – That is a sweeping and stunning denunciation of a pretty respected and complex ethical philosophy. Ethical philosophy is a very difficult and inaccurate science.

            Even if the 3 inaccurate points that you made regarding Singer were true, just because I agree with some things written by a particular ethicist by no means obligates me to agree with everything that they say. And the article I linked to changed my entire life dramatically, and nowhere in that particular article are stated those 3 absurd points that you’ve made nor do I agree or feel 100% comfortable with every single word of it.

            “It’s about encouraging a change in our sensibility toward animals and getting as many people as possible to recognize their worth.”

            I strongly disagree with this. Almost everybody ‘loves animals’ no one sees a cow in a field and wishes for it to be slung up by its back legs until it’s hanging fully conscious in the air with broken ankles waiting for someone to slit its throat. YET THEY PAY FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WITH THEIR DIETARY CHOICES.

            I am vegan, and you have no idea how absurd the sentence: “If you think just because I enjoy fried chicken that I can only “appreciate” and can’t love animals then frankly you are close minded and judgmental.” appears to me. It is 100% fucking insane, yet it’s a normalised viewpoint.

            “Maybe some of the people downvoting you are vegans already, but are they going to dedicate their career to animal welfare? Or their free time?”

            I think we vegans are the ones being downvoted here, evidently. But anyway, causing direct harm (ie buying animal products) is different to trying to prevent direct harm. So no, I do not have a problem with encouraging people not to cause direct harm to animals. Whether they want to go that step further and try to prevent it is up to them, I take part in some activism but no it doesn’t pervade every minute of my waking life. Nor should it, according to anyone, including Singer.

            I applaud you for being a vegetarian. I’m not into forcing anyone into being vegan but I am into talking about and trying to convince people of the logic and ethics of not causing suffering to creatures that we claim to love. People who volunteer at shelters yet still eat meat are definitely vegans waiting to happen, they love animals, but MUST be made firmly and brutally aware of the extreme inconsistency of their actions. Ok I’m done.

  6. Something about this reminds me of the South Park episode with the new mascot election, and PETA’s involvement in it. I wonder if her opinion would change is she personally knew someone with ALS. I do applaud her though for bringing this issue to light. People need to be aware of how this research is conducted, and if they still feel comfortable donating, good for them. If they don’t, that’s okay too. No one would should be chastised for donating to a charity of their choosing.

  7. Every time a story about animal rights comes up I get surprised by Stereogum readers’ comments being so anti animal rights.

    It’s pretty simple, violence is bad. If humans learn not to be violent to those that can suffer (i.e. animals) then we might learn to stop being violent to human beings as well. Violence is not the answer, because it should never even be a question.

    People die of diseases, it sucks, we can’t let masses of animals suffer for it. The argument about 1 rat for 1 human is invalid because this specific circumstance is fictional but yes, one for one human lives are generally worth more than animal lives.

    Yes I’m vegan, as if Grimes (most of the time)… going to get so downvoted for that. Whatever, wouldn’t be the first time this week. Peace.

    • Was going to post something like this, but you hit the nail on the head. As a fellow vegan, the comments on this post (as well as on the one that reported on Grimes cheating on her veganism) read like some ethics 101 discussion. For a reader base with a bunch of hyperactive music nerds (which is great), you would think Stereogum readers would approach other facets of life with similar open-mindedness.

      I also want to mention that people should not equate being vegan with Grimes. First, she sort of fits the hipster mold of being vegan because it’s trendy, even though she will indulge in ice cream because “she likes it” while overlooking the moral incongruence in such an action. I’m not attacking Grimes, though, so much as I’m just trying to point out that you don’t need extra wealth or some sort of cultural pass to be vegan.

    • Violence is an intrinsic part of life and always has been. My cat will catch a bird, chew off its wings while it’s still alive and play with it while it bleeds out.
      That said, part of what it is to be human is to devote oneself to higher ideals than the purely naturalistic. However, making choices that are detrimental to the preservation of our species in the name of what can only be termed extreme and unflagging idealism is naive at best.

      • The appeal to natural instinct is a straw man. We are humans and are capable of more than animals–can your cat run a super market or farm a crop? Human potential is endless. Not to mention that we are the biggest threat to our own preservation. We won’t preserve our species if we continue to treat the earth and its sentient beings as objects that exist only for our consumption and exploitation.

        • I agree that the appeal to naturalism is mostly a moot point, which is why I discarded the cat argument in my original post. It was mentioned to clarify my point, which maybe could have been better done.

          But I postulate that reducing human suffering is a paramount priority that is and should be a considered even if it comes at the expense of the lives of animals, due to a) the fact that we have both a natural and moral responsibility above all else to conserve our own species and culture and b) that the prevailing reasoning points to human suffering being orders of magnitude greater than that of animals as we have the unique capacity to reflect on and experience suffering on a level that is distinct from what animals are capable of.

          Human potential is endless only as long as we exist as a species. Working to overcome things like disease is paramount to ensuring our future. If we can do it without causing harm in the process, that’s obviously ideal. But even if not, if would be defeatist and contrary to the human spirit to simply give up, whether or not you may have emotional qualms about it.

          • Still, it’s not at all idealist to criticize animal testing, especially seeing how one is better off flipping a coin than actually carrying out testing on animals. Have lives been saved by animal testing? Yes. But we shouldn’t be complacent to perpetuate an outmoded, ineffective methodology when we have resources to keep pushing the envelope. And I think the only reason animal testing still exists in its form today is because humans continue to think of animals as objects rather than aware beings with their own interests and personalities.

          • I applaud the way that posters like you civilly debate your points and thoughts. I am not currently vegan or vegetarian but I know that I should be for moral and environmental reasons. For every cause that has a small following it looks like an overstep at the time but as we go on we drop the
            hang ups we have with our old systems of thoughts and realize we should have done it sooner.

            My issues with any movement is that sometimes they deem anything not 100% by their standards as a half measure and not worth it at all. I think we can go about it with a little less conflict if we took the time to understand that everything is a progression and while I may not be there yet I am willing to listen so I am in a constant state of change.

            Take an idea like Let’s all be Vegan For a Day of Each Month. Will it solve all animal testing, close every circus and Sea park, or the nightmarish 21st century mega farm? Of course not but if a large number took part it could introduce an alternative meal and may introduce more as a common scenario. No one has to concede on either side of this issue to do away with the idea that shoving lipstick in a cat’s @ss is trying to find the cure.

            Holding Pharma to some standard of a collective of altruistic scientists punching aids in the d%ck when it rarely is anything but doesn’t help the mythos. Logically from a monetary standpoint as a pharmaceutical company it would behoove you to find a treatment and to bury the cure for any of the diseases they research and it isn’t like they are giving away the patents to make it cheap for people to treat an illness when they do find something that helps.

    • Yeesh. Between the inane 8th grade koans (“Violence is not the answer, because it should never even be a question”), the comically flippant animals-over-people stance (“People die of diseases, it sucks, we can’t let masses of animals suffer for it”), and the obnoxious pre-emptive “gonna get SO downvoted”… how on earth does this comment have any upvotes at all?

      • Ok fine, so let’s debase ourselves and torture millions upon millions of beagles, rats and monkeys to cure diseases that kill relatively few of us. If that’s an animals over people stance then so be it.

        Your arrogance towards extreme and massive suffering is astounding. You can’t relate to the suffering of animals because you’re so single minded that you can’t see something of yourself in it; you just want to protect your own.

        Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. Classism. Speciesism.

        All forms of ugly and violent discrimination, and you are guilty of at least one.

        Don’t use reductive language about I’ve written, it’s rude, engage with my stance instead.

        • I sympathize with the anti-testing viewpoint. I just thought your commentary was vapid and left nothing to engage with. Your ability to develop a laundry list of assumptions about my politics and character based on my criticism of your comment says a lot more about you than it does about me.

          Have fun on your high horse.

      • I don’t share all of boozm’s opinions but I think their doing a good job of articulating a viewpoint that most people find incomprehensible or indefensibly extreme. When someone makes a clear-headed and rational argument for their point-of-view, engages respectfully with disagreement, doesn’t resort to name-calling… people respond well to that. So yeah, basically everything you failed to do. Hence upvotes for boozm and downvotes for you.

        • “People die of diseases, it sucks, we can’t let masses of animals suffer for it,” is what people around here consider an articulate viewpoint?

          cf. My recent comments about Stereogummers being obsessed with “positivity”, no matter how inane, naive, or fundamentally irrational. People on this site will upvote ANYTHING they perceive as remotely heartwarming without taking even one moment for reflection. SG has basically turned into Upworthy — except Upworthy doesn’t do 12 stories a week on Arcade Fire.

          • I think this thread has been pretty brutally in favour of brutality actually, rather than positivity.

            But positivity, kindness and non-violence are GOOD THINGS. You can intellectualise it all you want (and I’ve been through a literature/philosophy degree so I’m more qualified than 8th grade) but you invariably end up back at Huxley:

            “It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one’s life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than “Try to be a little kinder.”

            Or Vonnegut:

            “There’s only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”

            Let me extrapolate on this “people die of diseases, it sucks” thing that you insist on ridiculing as evidence of my assumed intellectual ineptitude. I wouldn’t personally torture and kill a dog, rat, monkey or bat to save myself from my own disease, so how can I excuse it when it is institutionalised by the medical industry? If humans have to cheat nature at all costs by developing ways to prolong the human life span, because they are afraid of dying and can’t accept that they aren´t the turning point of this universe, let alone this earth, the least they could do is to try their treatments on themselves. It debases us morally to cause such suffering on sentient beings, I want no part of such debasement.

            I didn’t call you racist, sexist, homophobic or classist by the way; I called you speciesist. I was just trying to demonstrate that they all belong to the same category of hateful prejudice. Sorry if it came off that way.

  8. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance PETA is experiencing after hearing about this.

  9. It’s pretty brave of Claire to vocalize her opinions on the ALS Association when social media and the general press has been inundated with nothing but praise for it for the past month (ontop of the fact that she is already a pretty big target for scrutiny). I respect her opinion 100% and even though I’m not a fan of veganism and agree with animal rights to an extent, I do believe it should be regulated more heavily.

  10. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  11. Grimes is sticking to her guns.

  12. I don’t see a problem with donating to another organization since she openly voiced her opinion why. It’s only seen as newsworthy because everyone else is just going with it, which isn’t necessarily bad since it’s still for ALS awareness. This company (http://www.toonusa.com) just started an #AnimeForALS campaign to change things up from ice buckets. I’m cool for anyone actually doing productive things toward creating the cure.

  13. She is, of course, entitled to her hippy dippy opinion, but PETA lost me when they took the stand that eating honey is “cruel” to the bees.

  14. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • Okay, hidden due to low comment rating. That was honestly to be expected. You may not agree with me but I encourage you all to watch the video. It really puts things in perspective.

  15. but it is biased ! how do you imagine Louis Pasteur elaborates his vaccines ? there is no getting away from facts..

  16. Cause, fuck people with ALS, fuck science, fuck advancing medicine and curing diseases. Bunnies are CUTE!

    • This is exactly it.

      It could have been a respectable position if she had found an alternative ALS charity to promote, or actually articulated a case for why animal testing is not helpful in ALS research, but as it stands her position is simply that animal lives are more valuable than human ones, so fuck it, I’ll donate to this other charity I heard about on the Daily Show.

      There are valid arguments against animal testing in many situations, but this is just high school posturing.

  17. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • Yeah, it used to be mostly music with a few ‘where’s the beef?’ thrown in for fun. Now It’s hard to find music amongst all the gossip/social issues articles.

      • Concur. An inherently controversial thread or an every now and again pop article really doesn’t get to me.
        But as I look at today’s “line-up” on SG I’m beginning to wonder if this is the place I want to go and bullshit about music. Don’t get me wrong…I’m not above a snide comment or a pissy bitch about something that’s not inherently music driven. But it certainly FEELS like this site is become less about indie rock and it’s goings on and more about pop shit and social topics.

        But that’s the choice of the site. And obviously they feel the direction they are currently taking the website in is the best interest of the site. And I perfectly understand it. But as I look at the past week worth of articles on this site I’m pretty damn sure 5 years ago I wasn’t seeing all this pop shiite.

        There’s way more of “them” than there are of “us” in the music world. Perhaps this assumed lowest common denominator musical shift will work out. But if it goes much further than it’s already gone to this point I won’t be around to find out.

  18. I wonder how many animals her grandparents had to experiment on to be able to make the perfect beef stew…

    #NeverForget

  19. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  20. Can someone tell me… Who the %**& is “Grimes”, and why should I actually give a @*#& about her opinion?

    • Grimes is the alias of an electronic musician named Claire Boucher, based out of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Her 2012 release “Visions” garnered critical acclaim, particularly for the tracks “Genesis” and “Oblivion”, both of which recently were granted a spot on Pitchfork’s (a music publication) Top 200 tracks of the first half of the decade. The latter in fact earned the top spot. Her opinion has been posted on this website as she is a prominent figure in the indie music world.

  21. She should choose me for the challenge. I would dump so much water on myself and donate the crap to ALS.

  22. I just wish her hair didn’t look like a Mermaid’s dick.

  23. lol she’s a hipster vegan so cool, so edgy.

  24. God, I hope this catches on! Not for the sake oft he animals but my sanity?! Well meaning charity or not this thing is really starting to grate on me last never…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2