(Sticky) uptakes in the animal rights movement

In the chapter "Activist Genre Knowledge," Jennifer Nish introduces the useful concept of uptakes: responses to another piece of work, influenced by the content and genre of the work as well as by the viewer's prior knowledge and beliefs. Nish also introduces "sticky" uptakes, defining those as "powerful uptakes that shape the circulation of social media campaigns and condition other uptakes that emerge in response to those campaigns." (128) My understanding of sticky uptakes is that they are genres or ideas that have come to be synonymous with another genre or idea -- even if that connection is not necessarily accurate or fair. I find this concept of uptakes to be a useful term for something I have noticed but not been able to name -- something, to put it very vaguely, like "people's reactions to something" or "what people are saying."

With regard to the animal rights movement, I believe one sticky uptake would be that animal rights activists do not care about humans, to the extent that they would be willing to do harm to humans if it meant helping an animal. The logic behind this sticky uptake is that animal rights activists have made animals their priority, therefore they cannot have time or energy to care about human issues. This sticky uptake is very detrimental to the animal rights movement because it causes many people to ignore and/or discredit animal activism.