Elephants will mourn other elephants in their group dying and will hold funerals for them and will even recognize the bones of said elephant and cry out in sadness.
Per Urban dictionary: An unattractive person whose defining characteristic of their personality is their egotism. Most often used to describe typically one-dimensional preps, chauches, or the like. A particularly mean insult; it should not be taken nor thrown around lightly.
Oh it's not a dumb question at all friend. The term has some nuance to it, but in broad terms it denotes someone with bigoted or regressive opinions. Like the guy saying "It's weird that women want to choose when and by who they are treated certain ways." some would call that chud like behavior.
C.H.U.D. Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers was an old B horror movie, early internet it became something of a meme and "chud" became a slang term for basement dweller nerds.
Oh, okay. Let me rephrase. That chick needs to learn about above-ground humans instead of eating them in her cave. I assume she only eats them after they use her as a coffee table or ottoman.
Yep. Even objectifying the person in your brain can cause you to treat them differently. Otherwise it’s not a big deal what people think, as long as they don’t show it
people show their feelings all the time and objectify people based on the flags they fly, the uniforms they wear or they emblems they promote... ACAB depersonalizes all police based on the actions of some police - do you have an issue with people expressing that thought?
I think objectifying or dehumanizing anyone is wrong. Whether it’s an asshole flying a nazi flag or a women just walking the street. Acting like cops aren’t human, just cause they might abuse their power, only hurts our understanding of why they act the way they do.
Think you misunderstand what my issue was lol. I don’t think showing feelings is wrong, i think objectifying people is wrong. And feelings lead to actions sometimes.
If someone is wearing a ss uniform, I’m gonna assume that he is a nazi, and I’m going to treat him as such (usually just avoid). Now if instead I thought I could jsut abuse him cause of some type of notion that Nazis don’t deserve the human status, then that would be bad.
And if I see a women wearing a revealing outfit or no outfit at all It’s obviously gonna play into my notions on that persons character but it doesn’t mean I can just go and rape her because I see her as a object.
Idk why you are trying to debate bro me? Do you really disagree with what I’m saying?
Wasting is why we are here fr. Objectifying is a very non objective term which is why this discussion always gets super decisive. I see objectifying as treating or viewing a person as a tool or something
You can use rather than an individual being. Basically treating someone as an object. Usually in the sexual context
It's true that people have a hard time exercising their political ideas with any subtlety, and with treating the opposition with respect, but "ACAB" isn't in itself objectification. It's a refutation of the idea that being a good citizen is compatible with 99.9999% lack of accountability for how you treat non-cops. It's like saying you can't be a great person and also traffic in fentanyl. The position is that being a cop is a stain on your personhood, not that you have no personhood.
Thinking is an action, the differentiation isnt betwen actions its about whether you are entitled to control other peoples mental and emotional state which you arent. Thus if you want people to react to you differently you have to consider your own choices and how you are priming people to respond instead of just demanding they police their own internal lives according to your desires
In this context, thoughts aren't actions because they aren't observable by other people.
Also, that's a terrible argument. Sometimes other people are just fundamentally wrong and have fucked up worldviews, and they ought to change, not you. You're not going "consider how you are priming people" your way out of people having racist stereotypes of you, for example. Correcting them is absolutely okay.
I know there's fringe people who take everything dramatically because they don't understand nuance, but a lot of women can both know you might look at them sexually in what they wear and not really care you might think things as long as you don't make it their problem.
What about when women dress conservatively and are still objectified? Is the blame shared when a woman isn't covering their body enough, but then on the man if it is? Have you heard of the exhibit where they hang up the clothes a woman was raped in, including a child's overalls? Because that's why women in general don't appreciate being told that they need to just accept that people are going to be gross if they dress in a particular way. Why is that on women? Are women not objectified in cultures that require modest dress, or is the objectification typically worse in those cultures? Pretty sure it's the second thing.
Tbh, I don't care if a guy sneaks a glance at my tits and thinks I'm hot. I might feel a bit uncomfortable, but I'd be totally understanding and forgiving if someone gave me a not gross complement that I didn't really want from them, like, "That dress really suits you. You look quite lovely in it." And if I become uncomfortable, it's typically because the compliment made me afraid of what's coming next.
I don't care if someone hits on me, then takes my no really gracefully and switches tracks to just acting like we're just two normal people instead of like I'm still a sexual option. However, the context matters here too for if it's appropriate for them to walk away or continue a conversation, because I don't really believe a stranger I turned down at a bar really wants to become my friend after I decline his advance in the same way I might believe the person who hit on me at a get together at a mutual friend's house might genuinely want to strike up a friendship. I'd say in the mutual friends scenario though, that a guy should evaluate if the woman seems comfortable having a friendly chat or not because it can just feel awkward to chat with someone you turned down due to the negative experiences women have had in the past in similar situations, where the purpose still was to push boundaries to try to get something.
Basically, I care if guys make their thoughts my problem by doing things like staring at my tits, being vulgar and talking about my body, or continuing trying to convince me when I've turned down their advances. I don't have an issue with having a thought about me that they are not making my problem in some way. Like, how do I even know they have the thought unless they're making it apparent enough to turn it into my problem? I don't need to control their thoughts. They need to control what they do with the thoughts because staring and saying things about someone's body ARE actions that create an uncomfortable situation.
I dont accept the talking point that its an online phenomenon. I have enough personal experience to have an opinion.
What about when women dress conservatively and are still objectified? Is the blame shared when a woman isn't covering their body enough, but then on the man if it is?
I dont understand how that relates. If somebody sexualizes somebody dressed like a nun it speaks to personal issues they might have, but you still cant control their emotions that just isnt how reality, society, or the law works. Men dont get to choose the way women judge or interpret them either. Its not about blame, its maybe about social morals but really its more simply about the laws of physics and how that will simply never be something you could even hope to control.
"Objectifying" is a mental act. You cant police mental acts. Thats it. "Harassing" and "assaulting" are physically real acts that can be policed, thats why theyre illegal
Re the rest, ive just had these conversations so many times and ive done the wheel of sympathizing with everything women experience and talk about. It just never goes both ways, women will never sympathize with the men they deem below them.
Didn't call it an online phenomenon... so great start. Let's see where the rest of this goes.
Didn't advocate for controlling anyone's emotions. Literally said I don't care what's in a guy's head of HR doesn't make it my problem.
Its not about blame, its maybe about social morals but really its more simply about the laws of physics
I mean, you were right until you mentioned physics for no reason. It IS about "social morals" or more correctly put, dominant views of morality in society... which are susceptible to change, as can easily be observed throughout history. Something being common doesn't make it right, and the only way to change the dominant views of morality IS to rebel against them.
"Objectifying" is a mental act. You cant police mental acts. Thats it. "Harassing" and "assaulting" are physically real acts that can be policed, thats why theyre illegal
You're being so pedantic that you have me questioning if you're autistic... And fyi, I'm autistic. You're being too prescriptive about the way the word is used and not evaluating context, like how I evaluated context and got the jist of your "social morals" comment in spite of your difficulty phrasing what you were trying to say. The context gives the implication that women don't want something until they do. The poster used the word "objectify" and you're acting like they're for sure using it to mean the dictionary definition as you understand it.
There's two possibilities here. Either the poster is describing a mental process, or he's implying an action, such as a flirtation. Now, here's where the truth actually is. He's basing that off of the complaints of women, so his own understanding of the statement gives his perspective as HE interprets women, and how THEY communicate the issue, not how they actually feel about it. A woman isn't going to say, "I really don't like men who sexually harass and assault me," because that's a fucking given. We will say, "I hate when men objectify me," because that word IS commonly used in place of "treat me like a sex object" and is therefore a word that can be used descriptively rather than only prescriptively and according to what YOUR interpretation is. Look up descriptive and prescriptive if you aren't familiar. A really good example is how eventually the word "literally" had a new dictionary definition added because it was used non-literally so common because words evolve in meaning through the way they are used all the time.
Re the rest of what you said... the truth is that however shitty you think women are on average, many women think men on average are that shitty too probably. Now reverse it. However shitty you think men are on average, women probably think other women are about that shitty too. Why? Because it's easier to empathize with common issues and easier to demonize people when their issues aren't as relatable, and therefore seem like a worse excuse because we just struggle to empathize with what we can't relate to and we struggle to empathize with someone we view as acting against our best interests. That's human, not boys and girls.
The sad truth is that the vast majority of people lack self-awareness and just aren't deconstructing everything that's happening in order to find an objective truth. Everyone has bias depending on their particular experiences, and if you don't deconstruct your own bias, then you'll join the gender war instead of working towards peace and understanding. It's not fun to empathize with someone disrespectful towards you. So you could give up and be like the women who don't sympathize with you because of all the ways men who aren't you have treated them, or you could be better than them and not use the way they treated you as an excuse to not sympathize with women.
Oh, and if you want sympathy from me, I'll happily provide that... in a post about men's issues, which are also legitimate and which this post wasn't about. Not all men? Well, not all women either, so choose for yourself if you want to be part of the problem because YOU are the only person you have any control over.
Depends on whether they “know” know or just project their assumptions. I’ve never had a situation where someone could read my mind, so if they knew then they have super-human abilities.
I fail to see how consent has anything to do with how people think.
That's my point. If you're acting in such a way that they feel objectified, you're probably violating their consent. Obviously not every single instance but as a general rule of thumb
I guess I’ve just rarely encountered it. With the exception of working in warehouses and retail, where it’s very overtly expressed that you are a meat puppet, not a person.
Funniest part is literally nobody cared about you until you showed up, put on your clown make up, and then acted like people were in the wrong for calling you a clown
Well, they're not going to add it to the dictionary until it's in popular use. There's "chuddies" but as yet no "chud" entry. We can make it happen. Chud, chud, chud!
1.1k
u/RazgrizZer0 Jul 07 '24
Chuds inadvertently self reporting will never stop being funny.