Comment on Beans
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 hours agoThe top-level comment literally said “because the cat isn’t declawed” not “because cats have claws.”
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm, when the reality is that cats with claws are the norm and that not only are declawed cats a deviation from the norm, but it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
It was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets, and the next person’s response was completely appropriate and called for.
Chicxulub@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
No, it doesn’t. Declawing was a common thing to do and it’s still legal in most places. It’s not that unusual to find rescue cats that have been declawed.
Yes, for the 10th time in this thread, literally no one here has suggested otherwise.
Not it’s not, it was an observation of the absence of a still relatively commonly seen occurrence. If they really cared cats, then a simple correction would have sufficed, rather than bringing attention to themselves with passive aggressive shittiness.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 hour ago
Exactly, all the more reason to call it out when you see language that normalizes it.
If you agree that it’s bad, then get with the effing program instead of focusing your ire on the people who are actually calling it out!
Again, a sane person would say “cats have claws,” not “that cat hasn’t been declawed.” See the difference?
Oh, you want to question whether someone really cares about cats? Someone who actually called out language that was attempting to normalize declawing, while you’re the one rushing to defend that language? I don’t think so.
You’re the one doing that by saying things like “do you go around looking for things to be offended about” and “some people make impotent rage their identity.”