I don't know if it's the good kind of attention. It's pretty arguable that PETA adopting similar tactics has arguably slowed their cause more than helped.
In PETA's case, they suck all of the air out of the room from other animal welfare organizations. These public displays do not change minds so much as they drive donations. So they end up control a bigger share of a shrinking pot.
At least in PETA's case they can show examples of animal cruelty and make people aware about an issue. But I don't think there's a single person out there in the world who needs museums vandalized to learn about climate change.
Meanwhile, there are lots of examples of tactful organizations that do not get headline attention but get decent policy results.
I think this oversimplifies things because one is a younger organization, and there are a ton of similarly named ones. People can't think of very many international charities, but the ones that come to mind aren't known for being notorious and off-putting (e.g. Unicef, Red Cross). Possibly PETA cannibalizes here as without them another more appealing replacement would get similar recognition? I'm not sure.
personally it's rationalist adjacent writing that got me interested in avoiding some conventional factory farmed products
In PETA's case, they suck all of the air out of the room from other animal welfare organizations. These public displays do not change minds so much as they drive donations. So they end up control a bigger share of a shrinking pot.
At least in PETA's case they can show examples of animal cruelty and make people aware about an issue. But I don't think there's a single person out there in the world who needs museums vandalized to learn about climate change.
Meanwhile, there are lots of examples of tactful organizations that do not get headline attention but get decent policy results.