Toot

Written by loom on 2025-01-14 at 12:02

and because the human animal is more “special” than other animals, it polices the language of how these kinds of atrocities can be described, especially by those same progressives who speak so fervently on the subject.

• an animal can’t be described as a “slave” even when it is imprisoned against its will, forced to work, forced to obey, and considered entirely as property.

because to describe it as a “slave” is to diminish the experience of the humans who have experienced those same conditions.

instead of recognising that humans are animals too, and elevating the weight of the atrocity as it happens, even progressives will put animals down to preserve their special status.

• an animal can’t be described as being “raped” even when—without consent—it is restrained by machine or harness, forcefully penetrated against its will, forcefully impregnated.

because it diminishes the experience of the humans who have experienced the same conditions. the human is special. the line is drawn whereby animals can’t be seen as “women” (or “mothers” when their children are forcibly ripped away from them after birth). empathy ends after “human” because the human is not an animal. it is special.

• when 70 billion animals are slaughtered each year in gas chambers, with knives, with guns, drowned in scalding water, with their limbs hacked off and their throats cut open it cannot be described as a “holocaust”.

because that word is reserved only to describe the human experience which is something different to what an animal can experience. the words are protected to delegitimise the experience of animals. to protect humans as something more than animal. to separate humans from animals and to push the animals down so that these horrors can continue without thought.

=> More informations about this toot | View the thread | More toots from coconut_noodle@ni.hil.ist

Mentions

Tags