I don't think you need to be civil to puppy-smashers
google privacy · 5 comments · 400 words · Viewed ~293 times.
My good friend Jess wrote this a little while ago:
The whole thread is worth reading. One thing she doesn't cover is how you should respond when someone proposes to implement a puppy-smashing machine.
If you don't agree with puppy-smashing (and there are two sides to every argument) then it's very important to be polite and civil while discussing the issue - because puppy-smashers are real people with valid feelings.
For example, you could say to them:
- I'm not so sure that's a great idea. Please would you reconsider?
- Hey, just so you know, not everyone is down for puppy smashing. Any thoughts on addressing that?
- Interesting. But have you read Smith et al's work on differential smashing of pets?
- You're the good guys! Is there any way you can exclude my puppy from being smashed? He's a service dog.
- Perhaps you could only smash puppies 10% of the time? No worries if not!!!
And so on. That way you get to have a calm and respectful decision about the the hard work people are doing. Even if someone is threatening to smash your puppy, you need to keep a cool head and make sure you don't raise your voice.
Right?
No.
The correct response is "What the actual juddering fuck is wrong with you? Don't be such an absolute thundercunt! I'm going to call the authorities right now, you literal scumbag!"
It was Robert Jones, Jr. who said: "We can disagree and still love each other. Unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression, your denial of my humanity, my right to exist."0
I don't think you need to be civil to those people who are deliberately trying to harm you. Sure, you might get a more positive reaction if you gently cajole them or politely help them see the error of their ways. But sometimes it is important to let people know vociferously just how much their plans will hurt you and your puppies.
-
Often mis-attributed to James Baldwin ↩︎
More comments on Mastodon.