Internet Barks Back at New York Times Op-Ed Asserting That Dog GIFs Are Bad
A recently published New York Times op-ed questioning whether what we see of dogs on the Internet is what they actually feel has the internet showing its teeth.
All dogs are good boys, but are all good boys happy boys? That is the question on the mind of New York Times contributor Alexandra Horowitz, who argues that the GIFs, pictures and short videos of dogs frolicking, licking and smiling we all like and share, are doing a disservice to man’s best friend.
The article entitled “Is This Dog Actually Happy?” published on March 27th, explains that many of the images we see of dogs show and tell more about what people want to see rather than what is actually happening. For example, images of dogs smiling or wearing clothes ignore the discomfort the animal might actually be in. Not exactly what the GIFs hungry world of social media wants to think about when checking out fine doggo, shoob and pupper.
"The reason is that these dogs are but furry emoji: stand-ins for emotions and sentiment,” writes Horowitz. “Each representation diminishes this complex, impressive creature to an object of our most banal imagination.”
“As the philosopher Lori Gruen has observed, to be seen as something other than what one is, or to be the object of laughter, robs one of dignity. Such treatment may not be mortifying to the dog, perhaps (in fact, that’s a legitimate question, whether dogs can feel mortified; I remain agnostic); but it is degrading to the species.”
Must we all feel guilty for wanting boop a snoot? Nay, the internet will continue to boop.
Fighting back against the op-ed are a pack of wild dog-related GIFs refuting Horowitz’s arguments and leaving behind a healthy ratio-ing in its wake.
However, it’s worth noting that if we love dogs so much, shouldn’t we be trying to better understand their thoughts, emotions and levels of comfort? Isn’t it worth considering that, like various other "viral videos" of animals doing perceived cute things, like "shower rat", these animals might not be as healthy as we think? Has an epidemic of gif-related dog discomfort has sunk its teeth into society? Shouldn’t we first figure out if the dog is actually happy before exploiting it for likes, faves, retweets and overall human joy? Shouldn’t we--
Aw, look at this good boy. Who’s a good boy? Who’s a good boy? What was I saying again? Ah, nevermind.
Share Pin
Xellos
(((Horowitz)))
Oppressed Duck
The NYT will next run an op-ed explaining how our delight in pareidolia is actually an optical illusion, and objects don't actually have the human faces that we project upon them. It will be titled Is This Chair Really Happy? and it will win the Pulitzer Prize for "Journalism" -- in the "Jackin' It" category.
Tentacles
"to be seen as something other than what one is, or to be the object of laughter, robs one of dignity. Such treatment may not be mortifying to the dog, perhaps (in fact, that’s a legitimate question, whether dogs can feel mortified; I remain agnostic); but it is degrading to the species"
This is the stupidest part of them all. "Hurr Durr, the philosopher said it, so it must be right". First, I don't know for sure, but the philosopher probably didn't said that in an animal context. More important, dignity is an abstract concept depending on the self-perception of your own dignity. You can't lose your dignity if it's a concept you can't remotely understand.
Hot Sauce
Not to contradict you, I find this article is extremely stupid, but on philosophical terms, “dignity” has a completely different meaning. It has more to do with the justification on having rights, and it’s one of the basis of the universal declaration of human rights. It's also an inherent characteristic, which applies even if the subject is not aware of it, like babies.
Ergo, X has dignity, therefore it has rights.
So, in this context, dignity is employed as “it robs the species of it’s rights” kind of thing, as in seeing them as an object of entertainment rather than a living being.
This is a very very simplified version. It’s kind of a piece in an endless debate of what is the basis for human rights, as it’s a rather complex issue once you get into gray zones.
The problem is that the concept of animals having “dignity” is pretty iffy and debatable, and as well most dogs actually like to fool around and do funny cute stuff on purpose. They enjoy it.
(i just talked about dignity because it was very very boring when i had to study it and wanted to actually get some use of the concept to vent my frustration on having to learn something with barely any practical use)
Tentacles
Uh, I see then, very interesting.I guess you are technically right, but in that case I would say that then these images and videos don't rob the dogs of the dignity we have already assigned them, since it's not like videos of dogs doing silly stuff it's going to undermine their animal rights.
Hot Sauce
This is typical commentary of "intellectuals" who have never had a pet.
I've lived with dogs my whole live, and it's impressive how expressive they are once you know them. They can understand your facial expressions and voice tone, and they are also capable of doing facial expressions themselves.
Dogs are quick to show discomfort, and it's easy to see if they are scared or uncomfortable. Most dogs are also capable of simply not caring about an issue if they have their mind in another thing.
I guess you could argue this thing in cats, who are not as sociable and tend to be less expressive, but dogs are social creatures that live in groups, and have evolved alongside humans, so it's easy to learn the way they express themselves.
Tentacles
Dogs are literally the only animal that has such a close relationship to humans as a species that they share a lot of the same boy language. It's one of the biggest differences between dogs and other canines like wolves or dingoes: these other animals can't be read remotely as easily as dogs.
Kenetic Kups
antiintellectuals*
HumbleWaterFilterMerchant
ZiggyZig
Does any of this matter? We project our emotions on dogs. The dogs probably do the same with us too. We are engaged in inter-species communication and this generates persistent misunderstandings. Yet we do get along quite well. Maybe the key to relationships is to enjoy misunderstandings…
(((Richard Cheese; 妹妹 Master)))
Dogs are nowhere near as smart as this guy is giving them credit for. They understand emotions, happy, sad, angry, ect. but the thing is, they show those emotions clearly. And what is he talking about a dog feeling degraded? There's no way in hell a dog or any animal can understand abstract concepts like pride.
The whole point of a domesticated animal like a cat or dog existence is for our entertainment and companionship, we respect them and treat them with the emotional support and restraint we need to when they show their feelings, but they can't understand the respect we give or don't give them.
TL;DR An animal is an animal. They understand basic emotion, survival instincts, and can do what you train them to, but that's about it.
CosmonautVulpes
What a loser, ever heard of "looking too much into it"
classified
SonicLover
Diversionary propaganda is diversionary propaganda, regardless of what it's trying to divert. Just sayin'.