Heartless Animals

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

This is exactly the same rhetoric used to dehumanize blacks.

[–]hej 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

How is this related to crime statistics?

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You don't see the "heartless animals" connection?

What if she had been robbed and raped instead? Would it be OK to call her assailants heartless animals? That's dehumanizing rhetoric.

[–]hej 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Are you equating expecting someone to pay rent to raping and robbing?

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's the dehumanizing rhetoric. "Heartless animals" is literally calling people less than human.

If she had been robbed and raped instead of evicted, would you have called the criminals heartless animals? Why or why not? Is it OK to dehumanize people who commit crimes? What about people who follow legal procedures and commit no crimes?

[–]hej 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Lets make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Dehumanizing a person could take the form of torture, slavery, abuse, etc.

We're, however, talking about the first amendment which allows you and me to say things that are offensive. That's allowed regardless if criminal, deserved, innocent, etc.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Dehumanizing means denying a person's humanity. Calling him an animal is denying his humanity. It's just that simple.

Of course, it's only wrong when other people do it, but when you do it it's A-OK. Here's a nice essay that explains why you do this: http://archive.is/QRJ6m

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[removed]

    [–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    You really should. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of. It was written by a leftist so it's OK to read. https://archive.fo/QRJ6m

    [–]hej 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    It was written by a leftist so it's OK to read

    what the hell does that mean?