Random Thoughts 2: Arbitrary Speculations

[Kyriakos]

I mean I think keeping pets is kinda unethical

Maybe. I just don't like animals, though. Including most humans

And the ones used as pets don't matter in the overall preservation of a food chain/environment either. Only stuff like worms and insects tend to matter there.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I like animals but i don't like most humans.

 

[Kyriakos]

I like animals but i don't like most humans.

Animals are even dumber, though. Only speciesm keeps them around. I am for meritocracy. ^_^

 

[Ryika]

You Ableist people want to get rid of guiding dogs for the blind?

 

[Kyriakos]

You Ableist people want to get rid of guiding dogs for the blind?

Those aren't pets, tbh, but helpers

 

[Valka D'Ur]

y'all do what you want, I suppose

Fortunately, I don't need your permission, or anyone else's, to have a cat in my home.

I mean I think keeping pets is kinda unethical

I'm sure the people who depend on service animals like seeing-eye dogs (among numerous others) would not agree with this.

Animals are even dumber, though. Only speciesm keeps them around. I am for meritocracy. ^_^

Humans are animals.

 

[Ryika]

Humans are animals.

This is one of those phrases that some atheists use when they think they're being clever, when in reality it just makes them look silly because the fact that humans are biologically categorized as animals is news only to the most moronic Christians from the rural areas of the Bible Belt.

Normal people understand that the word 'animal' is not used as a biological category here, it is used to distinguish between humans and the other living beings that surround us. The word is used like that literally everywhere, "animal" cruelty laws don't apply to humans, you don't put an "Animals Crossing"-sign in front of a school, and a "Don't feed the animals"-sign doesn't mean that you can't give your daughter the chocolate bar she has been asking for for the last 30 minutes.

_____________________

@topic: I've been trying to find a way to translate "Das wird man doch wohl noch sagen dürfen!" into English without losing out on the tonal nuances of the phrase, and have come to the conclusion that it's simply impossible - which is... really sad, because that one sentence describes a particular mindset more accurately than any other phrase ever could.

 

[Synobun]

I don't see how Valka's comment is a pathway to atheism zingers.

 

[Ryika]

That's because you're a boring normy who hasn't spent hundreds of hours being an annoying atheist in youtube comment sections like I have.

 

[Synobun]

Reeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Ryika]

Reeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Lohrenswald]

Fortunately, I don't need your permission, or anyone else's, to have a cat in my home.

why do you feel the need to say this

(also you need the government's permission but that's just semantics)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

@topic: I've been trying to find a way to translate "Das wird man doch wohl noch sagen dürfen!" into English without losing out on the tonal nuances of the phrase, and have come to the conclusion that it's simply impossible - which is... really sad, because that one sentence describes a particular mindset more accurately than any other phrase ever could.

I've thought about it myself and also concluded that it can't be done. It's really weird because the English speaking world seems to be full of people who fall under the archetype who would constantly say that.
It can't even be translated literally because doch doesn't have an English equivalent.

 

[Synobun]

Give it a go and maybe a native English speaker can devise an equivalent?

 

[Ryika]

Well, the most direct translation that keeps most of the literal meaning that I can come up with is: "We're still allowed to say that, right?", and is usually uttered after someone took issue with an overtly racist or otherwise discriminatory comment that had been made - but that translation misses all of the "punch" of the German phrase and instead sounds rather wimpy and defensive. Because the devil is in the details here - the German phrase is not a question, it's more of a rhetorical question in nature, that is presented as an emotionally charged exclamation. The emotional component of the phrase is more like: "How dare you suggest that it was not okay for me to make that statement!"

As such, that phrase is simultaneously a defense of the statement that was made before (which I think is represented in the translation), but in the subtext it is also an aggressive move that emotionally implicates the opposition of having committed an injustice to the person by accusing them of being a racist for making a statement that is, in the mind of the person who said it, self-evident.

But even that explanation still misses half of the nuances that are going on with that phrase.

Anyway - in public discourse, the phrase is known as one of the "catchphrases" associated with the far right, far right sympathizers, and the "I'm not a racist!"-racists. A phrase that has become a joke to those who see through the scheme, but it sounds extremely attractive to people who are the least bit open to what these people have to say. Dumb people fall for it, intelligent people use it to justify their bigotry to themselves and each other.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Humans are animals? I thought Humans were a variety of Hard-shelled fruits known as "Nuts".

 

[Synobun]

Well, the most direct translation that keeps most of the literal meaning that I can come up with is: "We're still allowed to say that, right?", and is usually uttered after someone took issue with an overtly racist or otherwise discriminatory comment that had been made - but that translation misses all of the "punch" of the German phrase and instead sounds rather wimpy and defensive. Because the devil is in the details here - the German phrase is not a question, it's more of a rhetorical question in nature, that is presented as an emotionally charged exclamation. The emotional component of the phrase is more like: "How dare you suggest that it was not okay for me to make that statement!"

As such, that phrase is simultaneously a defense of the statement that was made before (which I think is represented in the translation), but in the subtext it is also an aggressive move that emotionally implicates the opposition of having committed an injustice to the person by accusing them of being a racist for making a statement that is, in the mind of the person who said it, self-evident.

But even that explanation still misses half of the nuances that are going on with that phrase.

Anyway - in public discourse, the phrase is known as one of the "catchphrases" associated with the far right, far right sympathizers, and the "I'm not a racist!"-racists. A phrase that has become a joke to those who see through the scheme, but it sounds extremely attractive to people who are the least bit open to what these people have to say. Dumb people fall for it, intelligent people use it to justify their bigotry to themselves and each other.

I don't really understand the issue in translation. That phrase is used in North America, at least, with the exact same stated nuance. What am I missing?

 

[Ryika]

Which singular phrase do you mean?

The only phrases I gave are phrases that I said do not at all capture the full extend of the German phrase.

 

[Synobun]

Well, the most direct translation that keeps most of the literal meaning that I can come up with is: "We're still allowed to say that, right?"

 

[Ryika]

...a statement that is then followed up by more explanations about how that question does not accurately represent everything else that comes with the German phrase.