On so called "human animals" , And why such a term is (never) accurate

Sun, 03 Mar 2024 20:51:37 GMT

-----While we use the terms 'animal' , 'human', and 'people' here very broadly, we recognize many individuals do not identify with one or all terms. We currently lack the language, energy, and awareness necessary to do better in this regard for a longer piece of writing, especially one on this specific topic (due to frequency of the concepts). We recognize this is at best a harsh sell for anyone who'd care about this, but feel it better to post the writing than to not. Genuine apologies if you for any reason disagree with this decision (or feel worse); you've every justification too.-----

Summary/'TLDR'; As 'nonhuman' insults may be used instinctively for inference to predator and prey relations, and there is trouble determining which is which in the moment, we as activists and otherwise caring people must avoid them- lest we assist abusers trying to confuse enemy and ally.

At humanities worst, we have a surprising tendency to refer to other people as 'animals' (implied to be of the 'bodily nonhuman' variety).
This on its face does not make sense, even as an insult, if one is a morale and caring person of any degree-
When using it as an insult- especially in the most extreme cases- humans are not doing so accurately. We unfortunately- especially in the case of those with power under unchecked hierarchy- treat non-human animals horrifically, from slaughterhouses, cages, experimentation, and so on. However as sickening and horrible as these acts are, they are never without some twisted reason; food, medicine, profit, and so on.

When using 'animal' or a non-human-animal reference word such as 'pig' as an insult however, this is not what is being done- Cops are not being equated to food or experimentation in any direct sense most of the time (as much as those of us using the word may find a way they could use such an analogy). Rather, they are being equated to something nonhuman- in this case as a slightly descriptive sense in its original use.
But, plenty of more accurate non-human insults could be used allegorically- even just 'shit' and its permutations would display more directly what the user thinks of the insulted than 'x animal'. especially as there is a very high chance the person insulting another would fight on behalf of said animal.

Hence, clearly, there must often be a missing link- an *additional* allegory somewhere in between 'human's perceptions of animals' and 'using animals as an insult' .

We (collectively) would like to propose 'predator and prey' are being referred to *as one* with these insults- saying that the insulted person is either one or both, conflating the two.
This fits with many humans, and arguably many non-human animals, perception of animals (including humans, from the non-humans perspective at least). Yes, many animals are both predators and prey- humans may even have a tendency to eat predators who may prey on prey we appreciate (snakes with some mammals, sharks and octopi with fish).
It also explains the earlier incongruity; When someone insults cops as pigs they are not comparing them to the animal *directly*, but to *prey* (and arguably predator) - hence marking them as individuals to be fought against and/or preyed upon in some sense. When {those in} the state of Israel calls the people of Palestine animals , or {those in} the United States calls immigrants animals, they are likewise marking them as prey and predator at once.

However, while this explanation illuminates the underlying cause and effect for these terms, it also illuminates more accurately why they are ineffective from a activist standpoint- and effective from a fascist, state, or similar position.
For while activists might benefit from clearly stating that abusers, especially those enforcing the state, are the 'predators and prey' of some sense, and when doing so clearly say when and where which is which ('when doing wage labor you are prey, when acting outside of the state's systems you are predator', for example). The pro-hierarchical state, and especially the fascism it inevitably courts, benefits not just from phrasing those it oppresses as both predator and prey, but *all people*. And, likewise, benefits from doing so in a fashion such that predator and prey are always as one, ever without clear definition ('our enemy is both strong and weak, they can steal jobs and not work at the same time', for example.)

Hence, by calling other humans 'animals'- implicitly, predator and/or prey- people are not only diminishing the value and reality of actual animals, non-human and human alike arguably.
But we (as a species) are also doing the work of fascists for them- we are blurring the line between predator and prey. The insult 'pig' for example does not specify the cop is a pig *because of the system of the state he serves*- maybe if the state 'were better' he'd no longer be one, it could be understood. He'd 'no longer be a predator', if only he preyed on people less, one could understand it as.

And, likewise, it leaves open the possibility that those *not* enforcing a system of control/intrusion/abuse (even if it is a singular individual) could be predators; as is occurring right now towards the people of Palestine, immigrants, and many more besides.

To summarize again as conclusion; Because animal-based insults are likely used instinctively as catch-all inference to predator and prey, with difficulty in determining which is which, we as activists and otherwise caring people must avoid them- lest we help abusive people and systems confuse others as to who the enemy is, and why they are (not) predators.

comments

Lins&

On so called "human animals" , And why such a term is (never) accurate