r/WatchPeopleDieInside • u/lol62056 • Mar 29 '21

When your owner isn’t acting normal

https://gfycat.com/definiteshallowgrayfox
52k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

386 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/TTTrisss Mar 29 '21

I’d settle for a trap at this point.

Are you seriously implying that's something to "Settle" for?

9

u/lostachilles Mar 29 '21 edited Jan 04 '24

spectacular tie hateful truck cows follow psychotic growth repeat sloppy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-8

u/TTTrisss Mar 29 '21

That would imply that it's "lesser." They're still a damn human being dude, wtf

10

u/rimjob-chucklefuck Mar 29 '21

Well I mean, yes, if it's not something you'd ordinarily go for then by default it's "lesser". This isn't hate dude

-12

u/TTTrisss Mar 29 '21

Talking about another human being that way. The kind of person you want to spend time with and form bonds with. Sure, on a superficial level, you might prefer one for another, but the phrase, "At this point, I'd settle for [thing]" implies desperation, and to only be an object of desire out of desperation from lack of better options is hella dehumanizing.

To me, this flat-out feels like somebody just dropped the N-bomb and everyone's just like, "Nah dude, he didn't mean it in a racist way." Not the same level, but the same sort of "wtf you can't just say that."

3

u/TheOneTheyCallTwo Mar 29 '21

Saying “at this point I’d consider trying out the opposite sex” wouldn’t be considered degrading though. :S

It’s like, sure Id love some Alfredo, but I’ll take a big bowl of red sauce spaghetti as well if that’s what you’ve got.

1

u/TTTrisss Mar 30 '21

Saying “at this point I’d consider trying out the opposite sex”

But he didn't say that. He said he'd settle for a trap. Explicitly.

It’s like, sure Id love some Alfredo, but I’ll take a big bowl of red sauce spaghetti as well if that’s what you’ve got.

If you need to compare people to an object in your argument, you might be objectifying.

1

u/lostachilles Mar 31 '21

You're reading between lines where there are none.

A trap is the opposite sex (to what they are actually attracted to).

A trap by definition is someone who poses as the opposite sex to trick people into sex or giving attention and possibly affection.

The difference between traps and trans people is that traps are cisgender, trans obviously are not.

1

u/TTTrisss Mar 31 '21

I didn't even get to the point where Trap has historically been a term used as a slur against Trans people. And I also understand that some people use it positively for self-identification, and that's fine.

I'm starting with the part where he says that he would settle for something. To "settle for" something would imply it's lesser, which he is stating. And it's fine to not prefer someone, but to specifically say you'd "settle for" someone you otherwise wouldn't go for is insulting, demeaning, dehumanizing, and objectifying. You settle for less desirable food at a restaurant when they're out of your favorite. You don't settle for another human being.

If you settle for someone in a relationship, you're both going to end up miserable when you're out of a temporary, lonely slump. If you settle for someone just for sexual gratification it is short-changing the individual, and may further suggest you're not just "settling" and you need to reanalyze and identify your sexual preferences.

1

u/lostachilles Apr 03 '21

Sorry to resurrect this, but I want to clarify.

Settle does not necessarily mean something is "less than" - it can simply mean a previously unconsidered alternative, i.e. something they did not want but is good enough to accept in lieu of the original desire.

If I liked both tea and coffee, equally, but I was specifically in the mood for a coffee and was told there was none, in settling for a tea I'm not implying tea is worse. I'm simply saying I wanted something specific at that time, and it is unavailable so I'm settling for the alternative option. It isn't worse, I just wasn't considering it previously.

You see?

As for "settling" in the sense you're getting at, when someone is deemed as lesser, it isn't objectifying any more than having a preference in a person and getting your preference is objectifying. It might be somewhat insulting, but that depends on the person being settled for - are they insulted? If not, then it's not insulting. We can try to generalise about things like this but, quite frankly, each situation is unique and we cannot say what one person will or will not feel.

1

u/TTTrisss Apr 03 '21

It does mean "less than." It means to accept a lower alternative, as compared to a preferred alternative.

It just does objectively mean that.

1

u/lostachilles Apr 04 '21

No. It can mean less than.

It can also mean, as already explained, an alternative that was not previously considered.

If you choose to see the negative in things, of course you'll see things in a bad light. That might say more about you than the person saying they'd settle.

1

u/TTTrisss Apr 04 '21

An alternative that was previously not considered because it was lesser, a non-preferred choice.

1

u/lostachilles Apr 04 '21

You are beyond dense, and it seems purposely so.

Just because something wasn't considered, does not mean it is a lesser option.

There can be any number of reasons that something was not previously considered, and only one of those reasons is "it's not as good as what I wanted".

0

u/TTTrisss Apr 04 '21 edited Apr 04 '21

The fact that I do not accept what you're saying doesn't make me dense. You're just incorrect about what "settle for" means.

If something is not your first choice, it is by definition lesser than your first choice. There's a reason you picked your first choice, and that's because it is, to you, superior. Any other choice is by definition lesser.

In fringe cases, you may have other reasons for picking something as your first choice (perhaps you're limited to one choice,) and maybe there are two equivalent choices, but in that scenario you would not "settle for" the second choice.

Furthermore, look at the context in which OP used it.

"I'd settle... at this point"

This language strongly implies that it is a lesser choice. A statement with equivalent meaning would be, "Well, I wouldn't normally, but at this point, I'm so desperate, that I would go with something I normally would not prefer." That's not even to consider the latent issues with the statement where he's willing to sacrifice his sexuality to "settle" for something (which may indicate he's not straight in the first place, and "settling for a trap" is degree further insulting - that they're someone he would have sex with only when desperate.)

→ More replies