re: #420 CuriousLurker

I agree, and not only because it is dehumanizing, but because (IMO) it also negates, choice, free will, whatever you want to call it. There’s an old Afghan proverb:

Even if you take out the God aspect, it means that cats (and all animals) do what they do because it’s their nature, it’s instinctive. There’s no right or wrong, no moral choice involved when an animal behaves in a way we consider vicious. Ditto for cockroaches—of all the insects in existence, I loathe them the most. They’re filthy, disgusting, absolutely revolting…but that’s what they’re supposed to be, it’s their job so to speak. We all know this—it’s the reason we don’t hold animals and other creatures morally responsible for their actions. They’re off the hook. Not so with humans. Barring mental disease or extreme circumstances, we have a choice. I, for one, am not about to let any human off the hook in that regard.

WRT the blog, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “it is way too easy to extend the designation”. People will walk right up to the edge of what’s allowed, and then test to see what happens when they push past the limits, especially if the limits are less than crystal clear.

I’d also add another point — with some terms, there’s a history and background of usage that makes them especially offensive and/or divisive, and I would put calling police “pigs” in this category. It’s not simply that it’s an insult, or even a comparison to an animal — it’s the divisive and/or unfair historical context behind the term.

I’ve known quite a few police and law enforcement people personally in my life, and it’s just wrong to label these people “pigs.” I don’t want LGF to be a place where that kind of language is commonplace.