What an even more peculiar downvote amount. Even if you (the arbitrary you, not necessarily you in particular) don't think they're worthy of being considered beings, it's not like I said anything offensive or off-topic.

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I just don't consider "it" to be depriving animals of "being" status.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

You know what...

I went and looked this up because of this comment. I had never heard of "it" being used like that.

I've only ever heard it being used to specify something specifically as a non-person, or more generally a "being". So I thought it was literally defining it as a non-being.

So TIL. I wasn't trying to be prejudiced, I have literally never heard of "it" being anything other than specifically a non-living object.

So thanks for the chance to learn something interesting today.

[–] oo1 1 points 3 days ago

Downvoted. For betrayal of dog commmunity.

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 days ago

Yeah, cats use kit/kits neopronouns

[–] x4740N@lemm.ee 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What?

You need to re-read the my comment because I don't think you understand it

[+] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works -7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm still not sure how else to read it.

From my understanding, the only "it" you could be referring to here is the cat. "its new landing spot" = "the cat's new landing spot". Ergo, calling the cat "it".

My point was cats at least deserve the respect of "they" (in this example, "their new landing spot") instead of calling them "it".

I apologize if I'm reading it wrong, but that's how it looks to me. Just trying to make sure to give kitties some respect.

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

At least my native language refers to animals as "it" so the mistake might come from there.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Maybe.

Either way, I am confused about how standing up for cats while literally commenting on /c/cats would be downvoted so hard.

I'm still wondering why everyone got so mad in 3 words, when I was betting nice to a cat!

I wasn't even mean to the guy I was replying to.

Unless I'm missing some kind of context here (and that would be really oddly specific), this is beneath reddit intelligence.

Not that it deserved upvotes either, it was just a remark that I totally forgot about until I got the reply notification. Lemmy should be better than this.

[–] hypnicjerk@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Lemmy should be better than this.

because your hypercritical brainfart didn't get you the updoots you wanted? it was a dumb comment that only stands up for yourself.

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am confused about how standing up for cats while literally commenting on /c/cats would be downvoted so hard.

You weren't standing up for cats, you were enforcing binary gender roles on cats. What if the cat doesn't want a human idea of gender projected onto it? If I were a cat, I wouldn't give two whiskers about human genders and pronouns.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

And as I replied to another, I learned that today based on the wording of their reply.

So that's a new thing I know now. I still don't think "they" is binary though. It's is kinda the star example of non-binary.

But I guess I did exclude a pronoun that I didn't know existed. I thought the word was specifically calling the cat an object, so now I know better. It wasn't intentional, and definitely not meant that way (as in not meant to force or exclude, aka discriminate).