3 ms·
> Some people will object that the term “blankface” is dehumanizing. Indeed. > The reason I disagree is that a blankface is someone who freely chose to dehuma
by amadeuspagel 5y ago
> Some people will object that the term “blankface” is dehumanizing.
Indeed.
> The reason I disagree is that a blankface is someone who freely chose to dehumanize themselves
This sounds like an excuse that would work for almost any kind of dehumanization.
- bawolff 5y agoYeah, that's a pretty unconvincing excuse he gave. Although i think in this case its a bit of a tautology - the fundamental feature of beurocracy is its dehuman-ness. Any descriptor of that is going to be dehumanizing because fundamentally that's what its describing.
- Zababa 5y agoAren't they the ones dehumanizing people in the first place by choosing to follow rules instead of listening to fellow human beings?
- amadeuspagel 5y agoThis - the idea that it's OK to dehumanize people as long as they themselves dehumanize others (by not listening to them?) - also sounds like an excuse that would work for almost any kind of dehumanization.
- Zababa 5y agoOn the other hand, dehumanizing people because they refuse to follow the rules is also an excuse that would work for almost any kind of dehumanization.
- amadeuspagel 5y agoNo one said that it's OK to dehumanize people because they refuse to follow the rules.
- Zababa 5y agoYet that's often how the people described as "blankfaces" act.
- yeetawayhn 5y agoThis is just a rephrasing of "it's not okay to be intolerant to the intolerant"
- MikeUt 5y agoBut is that dehumanization inaccurate? Does it give the wrong impression? The answer to both questions seems to be "no", so he does not need an excuse - his defense is truth.