The Pitters' Place

I thought this was interesting.

http://aphro-ism.com/2015/12/22/video-w ... movements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What kind of hippie bullshit is this?

Yes...there are arbitrary aspects of the human/animal distinction that are only meant to serve domination(capitalism, white supremacy, objectification). But that's a very difficult discussion to unpack and you must be very careful...because in the end human beings really are "different" or even "superior" to most animals in important ways. Animals cannot reciprocate "humanity"(recognition of humanity...or recognition of the deep/nuanced experience of the other) in many ways...though that doesn't mean they aren't complex creatures who's experiences are valid...and even similar to humans.

This is also why we are not as disgusted when an animal does something horrible(we just say "well, that's what animals do"), as we are when a human does the same. We expect better from humans for a reason. So the comparison between the plights of animals and black people is very simplistic and trivializing. Therefore, if there are any comparisons to be made, you better be extremely careful how you do so, because humans and animals are not equals. Comparing black people to animals is dehumanizing. There must be a way be can recognize and celebrate humanity without treating animals inhumanely. White supremacy is completely made-up fantasy, humanity is not.

You should also know that if one cannot distinguish between human and animal, one's opinion on any kind of art(i.e. movies) is automatically invalid. Since art is a unique expression/appreciation of humanity.

Wow. Okay then.

Wow? Lmao.

I was half-goading you. But you seriously think you could have a serious opinion on human expression if you genuinely can't make a meaningful distinction between human and animal?

(Hint: I don't believe you or anyone really can't see/appreciate the distinction. I think you're being disingenuous(or lying to yourself) for political purposes).

When did I ever behave as if I can't genuinely distinguish between humans and non-human animals?

What I think is that the distinctions that clearly do exist don't give us leeway to frame the human/animal relationship in terms of "superior" or "inferior", or that it's useful for any purpose to compare humans to animals as an inherent insult. It's obvious historically and contextually, or it should be, why comparing black people to animals for any reason is incredibly insulting, which is why even ostensibly well-intentioned contemporary instances of it (such as comparing factory farming to slavery) is clearly a bad idea, which is why I have never done so, but that's not the point of the article. Its point is that the idea of "animal", as it's been used in some contexts, is a socially constructed category used primarily to reinforce racial hierarchies (such as when black people are analogized to "animals" to justify abuses towards them). Her broader point is that the (socially constructed) human-animal hierarchy is a conceptual vehicle for justifying oppression and violence, partly similar to the way the racial hierarchy is used for the same (which is itself partly built off the human-animal hierarchy - again analogizing black people to animals was used as a justification for oppression, which wouldn't have made sense if oppressing animals wasn't already built in as an assumption). Her point is that we should work to break down this hierarchy, which isn't equivalent or even in any way similar to saying we should ignore all distinctions.

This is why I said "meaningful" distinction. That if you can't see a meaningful distinction, that's a problem...rather than any distinction at all.

Okay, but that still doesn't justify the human-animal hierarchy, the historical tool used to justify opression and violence (and which, according to the article, at least partially undergirds the racial hierarchy).

Like I already said, the human/animal distinction may be wildly exaggerated for self-serving/dominating purposes...that does not mean there isn't a meaningful, qualitative distinction at all(just because it's been muddled by human cruelty...and white people perverting the definition of humanity, reserving the label for themselves).

A lot of what she's saying appears to depend on the idea that there really isn't a meaningful distinction between human and animal. That needs to be addressed before addressing her "broader" point. And as long as a qualitative distinction exists between human and animal, combined with fact that black oppression has been historically justified by equating black people with animals, comparisons between black oppression and animal cruelty will be wildly irresponsible.

I'm sorry but people around the world and not only in white societies and since the beginning of humanity have deemed that animals were inferior to men, it is not white supremacy telling us that animals are inferior to men. Yes white supremacy has equated blacks to animals to justify their actions.

This woman is a vegan and wants blacks to side with the animals against white supremacy.
Don't trust white man saying animals are inferior to humans because they once said black men were inferior to white man and thus were animals also.

I find this very insulting personally because she is using black history to promote her vegan and animal rights. Actually she is doing the same thing as white supremacists. In "her mind" she is raising animals to the levels of blacks (and mind you it's blacks not all humans her target) while in effect she is once again comparing blacks to animals and linking them together in the same basket so to speak.

Humans have hunted and fed on animals since they appeared because we see them as inferior to us. This is not an issue about blacks or whites, I don't believe it's white supremacists making us think animals are inferior to humans.

I'd rather eat an animal than a black person. Black people of the world, you're welcome

Have you ever eaten a black person before, though?

Islandmur wrote:I find this very insulting personally because she is using black history to promote her vegan and animal rights. Actually she is doing the same thing as white supremacists. In "her mind" she is raising animals to the levels of blacks (and mind you it's blacks not all humans her target) while in effect she is once again comparing blacks to animals and linking them together in the same basket so to speak.

Exactly. If you want to make a point about a false human/animal construct, let that stand on it own. But don't fucking use black oppression to make that point, especially when there's a history of dehumanizing black people by drawing equivalences to animals. It's sickening. The more I think about it the angrier I get.

This is why a lot of black people don't fuck with animal rights activists, because they say and do clueless shit like this, not because white supremacy has tricked us. Animal rights should be seen more through the lens of capitalism than fucking race.

This kinda reminds me of when extreme feminists say gender is completely a made up construct meant to justify oppression. ..which leads to all kinds of problematic conclusions.

I really don't get the gender thing, truth be told. I get gender roles, and I agree that's a thing that's got to go. But I don't get gender itself being a social construct. I get even more confused about transgender when I think of it, because if trans are born in the wrong body/gender then how can gender be a social thing? Gives me a headache trying to understand, so I read and hope someday to get it lol.

Sounds like you get it to me. I don't fully understand it myself. Gender roles and the gender binary are constructs, but gender is not. And I'm not sure, but I've heard it said that there is a biological/neurological basis for gender identity(separate from biological sex).

And there's something deeply wrong with people - who have the unexamined privilege of being identified as the gender they are- claiming, for political purposes, that gender doesn't matter.

As long as we all agree that animal rights is silly bullshit for emotionally stunted people, then we can move on to the important stuff.

Animal rights is like tossing a fish in the sky in hopes it flies.

Animal welfare on the other hand is a realistic goal which I support.

I'm going to kill a goat in your honor. It will have been treated great right up until the moment I slice its throat open.

My ex (Nate's dad) usually kills a goat on his BD and we grill it, it's delish!