Not more than us. We are animals too. Technically we are ALL animals, minks included.
The point is that words have a CONTEXTUAL MEANING. And calling a mink an animal to attack one of them is a form a dehumanization just like calling a human a animal is ALSO a form of dehumanization.
Again, words have contextual meaning.
No, mostly bs.
So Bepo :
- Don't talk ?
- Don't think ?
- Don't feel ?
- Doesn't stand ?
- Does wear cloth ?
- Doesn't walk on his feets ?
Etc.
Hm ? "No humanoid features" ?
You don't understand what institutional/systemic racism is mate ?
If not, I won't explain it here. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
Have attribute of =/= Are
The minks are just as much as animals as other humans.
If you don't understand that point, I won't explain it to you. Its a waste of time. Plus, this would need a long political explaination and Mods here are completely freaking out when debate outside of the political thread becomes a little bit too much political. So lets leave it as that.
Yes indeed, there was also sexist reasons. Now, I'm talking about a specific subject here.
Indeed. But what you don't understand is that you are forcing me to give you that definition since you don't accept the mink as ust "the minks". In the context of a description compared to our world : Humanoid don't mean human, it means human like. The difference is that I don't attack Mink here contrary to other people. I use that specifically to describe further a race that you still want to consider as animals when they are not.
Again, the minks are the minks, that's what I said to you. You don't need to add the term "animals" or me "humanoid with animals attribute". The minks are the minks. Just like the fishmen are the fishmen.
Animal are not "inferior". The point is that using the word "animal" as a way to attack a character or a person that is dehumanizing. Don't make me quote actual people in real life and real life event to make you understand that... Again, words have contextual meanings. Linguistic 101.
You have made my point for me bro, you did not help yourself..
It matters when we analyse the behavior that consist in dehumanizing said characters to attack and degelitimize them.
I completely agree. That's what any proper individual should do.
The mink are the minks, there are no reason to call them "animals".
Dude.. if you want you can imagine this case:
Imagine that one day a space ship lands on earth and the extraterrestrial beings happens to look like cat standing up. Would you dare to call them "animals" ?
Or would you call them by he name of their race ?
The problem here is you thinking that the link between the interactions of the reality and the fictionnal its not an important topic.
#woof...
Not necessaraly. If you call mink and other races as animals to describe their biological nature (as we are all animals) then no, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
The problem comes with the context. And its the context that is important here:
If you essentialize a mink or a fishmen to their animal attribute and nothing more to attack them or delegitimize them, then yes, its called "dehumanization" and in the context of One Piece, its inherently racist. Just like calling human "animals" to justify genocide or war crime is a dehumanization process and inherently racist when its aimed at racialized people in real life.
sure
