A lot of our "luxuries" are just squeaky toys - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15169853
Image

Pet Squeaky Toys

We buy our pets squeaky toys.
Why do we do this? Pets like outside, smells, and chasing other animals. Not plastic toys that are inedible.

We "spoil" our pets with useless toys so that we don't feel so bad about kidnapping animals, locking them in our houses, and controlling their basic body functions. So that the isolations and torture that is involved in pet training, can be brushed off as "the education required to accumulate squeaky toys."

When we present our pet with his squeaky toy, we have giant smiles on our faces because "we just know" that this is what our pet wants. (we are so smart compared to our pet) And our pet sees our giant smile and knows it must act grateful and frollicky to get treats. He loves his squeaky toys... or else.

And then we abandon our pet in an indoor box (house) all day when we go to work, limiting its ability to have natural bathroom breaks, sexuality, or social relations with other animals. Tied to a leash so no natural walking is possible. Pull his neck violently if he disobeys.

Cruelty. With squeaky toys to remove all our guilt.

Image

Human Squeaky Toys

I bring this up because *human elites spoil various classes of their pets with various classes of squeaky toys as well.*

Dogs and cats as pets... might themselves even be considered a "squeaky toy" - one that makes the quiet desperation of being a human cog in a facless machine feel slightly better. Squeak, squeak!

Other human squeaky toys include: diamond rings, pickup trucks, giant houses, trips to Italy, and giant portions of ice cream cake with flaked quinoa crust... Squeak, squeak!

Aren't your masters nice to you!

They love you so much!

Just look at all your squeaky toys.


soundtrack
#15169875
Dogs have hunting instincts. A toy for them acts on those instincts. Playing with toys is like chasing and killing an animals to them. It's not that bad, they play in nature too.

For humans to have nice shiny things is a nice luxury, but also meaningless. The best things in life are free, like family, good company, love, or the sun on your face.
#15169912
Unthinking Majority wrote:Dogs have hunting instincts. A toy for them acts on those instincts.

Yes. So being locked up in a human box all day waiting to pee... can feel more natural if they are surrounded by squeaky toys that "evoke without satisfying" a natural instinct that survived the inbreeding-torture-kidnapping process that is pethood.

....

On my blog, I recently wrote:Squeaky Toys: the review

Image

A Duckland book review :
Michel Foucat – “Squeaky Toys and Submission”
with Daffy Duck and Ibn Battuta


soundtrack

DD : Ibn, I know you have some qualms about the methodology and some of the conclusions, but wouldn’t you agree that this is, nonetheless, a great philosophical work?

IB : When I first dove into Squeaky Toys, I was a bit blinded by the fact that this is Michel Foucat, with all that it entails. I enjoyed reading it, but kind of slept through it. But after reading it a second and then a third time, I was more able to see some of the possible flaws in his research.

DD: Such as?

IB : Well Daffy, in the second chapter, Foucat quips that “When you gaze into the dog too long, the dog gazes back into you.” And he then goes on to explain how the enslaving of dogs had a way of normalizing slavery in general, especially what he calls squeaky toy-enhanced slavery. He posits that humans were more able to accept their own social slavery by enslaving a smaller animal than themselves.

DD: And do you disagree with this?

IB : I don’t want to say whether I agree or not. I’m hardly qualified to describe the relationships between humans and dogs. But my issue is – neither is Foucat. Humans have been extinct for over a century, so most of what he has deduced about the interspecies relationships between them is based on second-hand research, often written by dogs or cats. I mean, if we ducks ever go extinct, will wolves write our stories for us? I certainly hope not.

Image

DD: But isn’t this normal methodology when you’re writing about historical periods and extinct species? Don’t we have to enter into historical data and records that we can’t really support with personal experience?

IB : Of course. But one has to be careful about making pat statements about other species’ historical relationships when you have never actually witnessed their interaction yourself. There are limits to what can be constructed on hearsay, even if the hearsay is complex and vast. Everything that the author describes, aghast, about the meek sycophancy of dog pets, is written from a cat-centric point of view, based on dog-written texts. In the author’s conclusions, the biases are likely to be more of a factor than the actual details of the research.

DD: On the other hand, all books tell the story from their author’s point of view, no?

IB : Yes, but Michel Foucat isn’t just any author. He’s a cat, and cats have had a personal experience with human submission, as well as a complicated relationship with the dog world for many centuries. So he’s not only relying too much on indirect research, but he’s also part of a community that is not neutral in the matters of which he writes. For ducks like us, this species bias is important to recognize because of our own mitigated relationship with the feline species.

DD: Are there any other examples of possible research-contaminating bias in the book?

IB : One other springs to mind. In the chapter entitled Spoiled! he contrasts the plush and colorful toys that dogs are given as tokens of affection – with the control of their bathroom breaks, torture-based training, solitary confinement, and other enslavement conditions. He concludes that these toys are primarily to make the wicked human master feel less guilty about robbing the dog of all his dignity and freedom.

DD: Yes, he goes on to say that, in many ways, dogs were themselves a squeaky toy for humans – along with pickup trucks and diamond rings – and that dogs were aware of this. But back to your point, Ibn – in what way is this contaminated with bias?

IB : Well, Daffy, contaminated might not be the best word here. But once again…I…um… some of the conclusions that Foucat comes to – like that squeaky toys were mainly a tool of human guilt-management – is made without a real grasp or description of human psychology. We duck readers are just supposed to assume that humans would feel guilty about enslaving another species, and that a squeaky toy would help.

This may be the author projecting duck and cat levels of empathy onto a long-gone human species. Not surprisingly, Foucat has been accused by many academics of being “Felinist” in the way he selects historical data to paint a very specific portrait of his own species.

DD: Wow! Thank you, Ibn.

We’ll be back with more of this review of Michel Foucat’s “Squeaky Toys and Submission” after these words from our sponsors.

>”<


This is a first draft, but I like the squeaky toys analogy for understanding the role of luxuries.
#15169948
Omg Michel Foucat, so adorable! Hopefully when he goes out searching for Toms in alleys, he uses protection!
***
I spoil my pet because he's the only person in my life that doesn't end up despising me. 8)
I'm either not ambitious or presentable enough for the status-seekers
or I'm not debauched enough for the work-all-week party like hell on days off crowd.
My pet is the only one who doesn't give a shit what I do with my life so long as I take him out to shit.
#15170056
QatzelOk wrote:Yes. So being locked up in a human box all day waiting to pee... can feel more natural if they are surrounded by squeaky toys that "evoke without satisfying" a natural instinct that survived the inbreeding-torture-kidnapping process that is pethood.

I get what you're saying. Putting a dog in a cage all day alone is cruel. My friend does it and I call it a cage, because it is a cage, but he corrects me and calls it a "crate", I guess that massages the guilt from their minds.

I have no problem with dogs as pets as long as it's done ethically. In the wild half of any mammal litter is going to die anyways. I have more of an ethical problem with birds, fish, and anything trapped in an enclosed space.
#15170075
XogGyux wrote:Do you ever have a topic that does not revolve around self-loathing?

I don't have a pet, so I don't loathe myself in this thread.

But I do think that people need to see pethood for what it is: cruelty and slavery of other species.

And any species that is nearing extinction NEEDS to be self-critical. This self-criticism might not feel as good as the charm one gets from commercial media - but commercial media is just poison that tastes like sugar. If that's what you're used to, then anything that doesn't taste like sugar... is going to make you want to go back to "the poison of old habits."

Unthinking Majority wrote:I get what you're saying. Putting a dog in a cage all day alone is cruel.

Or into a prison. Solitary confinement is obviously cruel like a cage, but locking an animal in a house all day is as cruel as putting a human in prison.

But you can feel better about this... if you give your dog a squeaky toy. For him, it will be like "a treat from God's hand." Because if he doesn't respond positively to the squeaky toy, the dog is afraid he will get fewer treats. But really it's the limit on bathroom breaks and smelling things (because of house prison) that the dog is miserably neurotic. He just doesn't understand that he has instincts that aren't being fulfilled.

froggo wrote:I spoil my pet because he's the only person in my life that doesn't end up despising me.

Historically, this was true of many owners of human slaves, particularly house slaves. These were often the only humans who didn't despise the plantation owners family.

What does that say about plantation owners?
#15170078
The bias in this thread and this sort of conversation, which is certainly implicit though rarely directly stated--and is to me glaring all the same--is the focus on urban dwellers.

In rural places animals are less likely to be confined all the time, and often are at least somewhat useful in some ways. Dogs are guards, etc. Cats catch mice. Chickens provide food.

Urban dwellers are weirdos, what else is new.

I have a rabbit. He lives in a custom built cage. He isn't really that useful. He sometimes sets me back a few bucks for carrots and rabbit pellets, but I also feed him miner's lettuce and other wild plants. He could be useful if i want to make a rabbit stew or something i suppose.
#15170090
QatzelOk wrote:I don't have a pet, so I don't loathe myself in this thread.

But I do think that people need to see pethood for what it is: cruelty and slavery of other species.

And any species that is nearing extinction NEEDS to be self-critical. This self-criticism might not feel as good as the charm one gets from commercial media - but commercial media is just poison that tastes like sugar. If that's what you're used to, then anything that doesn't taste like sugar... is going to make you want to go back to "the poison of old habits."


Or into a prison. Solitary confinement is obviously cruel like a cage, but locking an animal in a house all day is as cruel as putting a human in prison.

But you can feel better about this... if you give your dog a squeaky toy. For him, it will be like "a treat from God's hand." Because if he doesn't respond positively to the squeaky toy, the dog is afraid he will get fewer treats. But really it's the limit on bathroom breaks and smelling things (because of house prison) that the dog is miserably neurotic. He just doesn't understand that he has instincts that aren't being fulfilled.


Historically, this was true of many owners of human slaves, particularly house slaves. These were often the only humans who didn't despise the plantation owners family.

What does that say about plantation owners?

You always assume the role of the noble victim. This is not healthy, however in your case I believe it gives you empowerment and an identity. What you have done is replace the old fashion "honor and dignity" culture with "victimhood culture". Both require a prompt response to any perceived wrong. And if you do not encounter a microaggressions you can always rely on the past to feel empowered. There is no end point to this.
#15170095
Hey Qatz... Good to read from you again.

One day, my human brethen was just not there to help me as I went across some hard trials, losing my job, my physical health, my mental health, my home, my GF and the rest of my friends as well. All I had was this dog my mother bought me to prevent night anxiety crisises. We got it in a dog shelter, a Labrador/Rottweiler mix, and thus saved 2 living beings from almost certain deaths. We both cared for one another, and so I think I'm getting through as of now.

Ideals are fine but then realities set in. With sadness, I learn I had to simply disregard some of my ideals so I could still live. Bad choice? I guess it depends on one's set of priorities, those he can accomplish/afford.
#15170156
QatzelOk wrote:But I do think that people need to see pethood for what it is: cruelty and slavery of other species.

We should think about cruelty yes.

And any species that is nearing extinction NEEDS to be self-critical.

The human population has never been larger, nor the average life expectancy so high. Humans are the furthest from extinction than we ever have been. Overpopulation of any species will result in natural cullings by mother nature every once in a while, like COVID has done, but I don't see self-extinction in our future.

Or into a prison. Solitary confinement is obviously cruel like a cage, but locking an animal in a house all day is as cruel as putting a human in prison.

You have a penchant for seeing the negative in everything, when in fact there's usually positives and negatives to everything. It's a tough way to live if you see society as some tragedy. We've never been perfect, and we never will be. Everyone dying by 30 years old and half of their children dying of disease wasn't fun either.
#15170158
Unthinking Majority wrote:You have a penchant for seeing the negative in everything, when in fact there's usually positives and negatives to everything. It's a tough way to live if you see society as some tragedy. We've never been perfect, and we never will be. Everyone dying by 30 years old and half of their children dying of disease wasn't fun either.


Life is a tragedy for those the feel, and a comedy for those that think. :)
#15170396
MistyTiger wrote:Qatz is calling us all fools. What a fool! :excited:

Even monks need their luxuries these days. Monks can gamble.

What is life without the squeaky toys? Shiny toys are nice too. :D

Monks are among the most imprisoned of humans, though the fact that they don't have to live "withing the confines of capitalism" does give them one less chain than most humans have around their neck.

Julian658 wrote:You always assume the role of the noble victim. This is not healthy...

Well Doctor Julian, in this thread, the "victim" is housepets. And if you think I'm "attributing other animals too much nobility," perhaps this is because you have been conditioned to consider other species "our tools and toys."

Maybe you need a self-help book. May I recommend the following one:

Image
#15170483
Sorry for my jab at city slickers.

I was just fucking around.

I'll just say that in this particular case, Qatz is pretty much flat out wrong.

He is pretty intelligent though. And there are grains of truth.

The biggest is that in the course of the history of humanity, humans sought to domesticate everything they could. In the course of this, they domesticated themselves the most.

But, there's nothing wrong with having pets. And the affection displayed by pets is often genuine. If they are just begging, you can tell. My rabbit begs for a carrot every time he sees me.

Sure people can mistreat pets. But, it isn't a general condition, as Qatz suggests.
#15170484
My ex girlfriend rescues stray dogs off the streets in China. Are they better off on the streets? Maybe. They can at least fuck and sniff shit all the time. (And create more stray dogs.) You know that casterated men live longer than not casterated ones? Probably applies to animals too. The testosterone is toxic, it turns out. Who knew.

The dogs stick with my ex girlfriend because she feeds them and treats them kindly.
#15170554
Crantag wrote:Sure people can mistreat pets. But, it isn't a general condition, as Qatz suggests.

Even pets who have tons of high-end squeaky toys, and who eat the best canned organic food you can buy... are still *kidnapped and imprisoned in a box*.

This goes against all their instincts and leads to *a life of neuroses*.

If this doesn't look like mistreatment to you, it's because we've been conditioned to accept and approve of mistreatment of nature in general. And this includes mistreating ourselves and living our lives enveloped within neuroses, just like *our animal possessions* do.
Key Rasmussen Polls

@late , if Rasmussen's polls are "fantasy po[…]

Please quote the part of the study that shows why[…]

Liz Cheney for president

She is a winner. She and Romney are about the las[…]

I think this is wonderful. What a great day for s[…]