The situation involving the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s social media post reflects a larger conversation about language, body image, and the changing dynamics of internet culture. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Context
Monterey Bay Aquarium posted a playful description of their otter, Abby, using internet slang such as “thicc,” “absolute unit,” “chonky,” and “OH LAWD SHE COMIN.” These terms are often used in meme culture to humorously describe animals or objects that are notably large or heavy. However, in this case, their attempt at humor backfired, leading to criticism from different sides.
Two Main Sources of Criticism:
Body Positivity Advocates and Anti-Fat-Shaming Groups
Some of the backlash came from people who are sensitive to the use of body-related language, especially when it reflects patterns of speech that have been used to demean or objectify individuals based on their size. While these terms were aimed at an otter in a lighthearted context, many people found the language problematic because it echoed the same phrases often used to mock or stereotype overweight individuals.
“Thicc”: Originally used in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) to describe women with curvier, fuller bodies in an empowering way, it has since been appropriated and sometimes trivialized in mainstream culture.
“Chonky”: A playful way to describe overweight animals, this word has also been associated with memes, but it could easily be read as part of a larger discourse around weight and body shaming.
For those focused on body positivity, the casual use of these terms to describe an animal risked reinforcing harmful stereotypes or contributing to fat-shaming attitudes, even if unintentionally.
Cringe Factor: Outdated Meme References
Another line of criticism came from people who found the use of these internet terms, especially “OH LAWD SHE COMIN” and “absolute unit,” to be outdated or cringe-worthy. Internet slang and memes evolve rapidly, and by the time a brand or institution like an aquarium adopts such language, it may feel forced or out of touch with current online trends.
Cringe: When brands or institutions attempt to tap into internet culture for humor or relevance, they often walk a fine line. If the language feels dated, the attempt at engagement can fall flat, seeming awkward or as if they’re trying too hard to be relatable. In this case, the aquarium’s use of memes that had already peaked in popularity a few years earlier came off as inauthentic and “cringe.”
The Apology
Given the backlash from both groups — those concerned about body shaming and those put off by the awkward use of outdated internet slang — the aquarium felt compelled to issue a general apology. They likely realized that even though the intent was harmless and playful, the execution didn’t sit well with a broad audience, touching on sensitive issues related to body image while also missing the mark in terms of cultural relevance.
Their apology suggests they understood that humor based on memes, especially those with underlying connotations related to body image, can be tricky to navigate — especially for an organization with a broad and diverse audience. They likely recognized the need to be more thoughtful in their social media language to avoid offending or alienating people unintentionally.
In Summary:
The situation highlights how language, particularly in the realm of social media and memes, is a minefield of interpretations. What might seem funny or harmless to one group can easily offend or annoy another. In this case, the aquarium’s use of dated internet slang and body-related terms sparked critiques from body positivity advocates and those sensitive to outdated meme culture, leading to their public apology. This underscores the importance of understanding both the implications of the language used and the fast-moving nature of internet trends, especially for brands or institutions seeking to engage with the public online.
I wasn’t asking for an explanation of the post, I was asking for an explanation of the view objectivity doesn’t exist, and from another user in fact. I see that you also responded to it and I think your analysis and the way you link it with the post is clear and correct. I especially appreciate how your conclusion arrives at a deepening compassion and relation to the other although you don’t explain exactly how to arrive at this, but if I missed that point in your response, I apologise. In my view is achieved not through decimation of the concept, but through unification of subject and object into a monist whole. But otherwise I agree with you, the existence of epistemological difference does not negate the entire field of ontology; it merely suggests a multitude that is socially determined and fluid.
I assume you were giving such a long and detailed explanation in the interest of accessibility, and not doing a bit – for this I deeply appreciate your effort.
Reason offers no path to objective truth. Syllogism requires premises. Premises require axioms. Reason and logic cannot create knowledge ex nihilo. They can only create knowledge within an already extant framework.
Empiricism is equally flawed, for the ghost in the machine problem is bidirectional. Many philosophers have asked how a construct of information, such as the human mind, can control a construct of matter such as the body. But I ask the reverse question, how can information perceive matter? How can matter act upon information? As we can see from the difficulty babies and children have with perceiving the world, perception is a learned process. How do we know we’ve learned it correctly? How do we know we’re not just reproducing social biases? The answer is that we certainly know that our perception is indeed a reproduction of social bias. For example, our perception of other people as men or women is quite immediate to us. We notice it before we can name any details that lead us to this perception. Yet some people are nonbinary, and transphobes perceive others as male or female when it is untrue and they are both or neither. The symbols that make up our perception, our schemas, are indeed founded upon social bias. They are not the source of truth.
And am I to point out the flaws with mysticism as well? I’m sure you are already familiar with those.
Thus the only answer is to consciously choose our axioms and our schemas, with the aim of imagining into being a better world, or at least the tools to create one. We cannot do this if we chain ourselves to belief in the objective.
You’re raising some important points about the limitations of reason, empiricism, and mysticism when it comes to accessing objective truth. Just as reason relies on premises that are themselves based on unproven axioms, our understanding of the world through perception is also shaped by social biases rather than direct access to an objective reality. This connects to the situation with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where their use of internet slang to describe an otter tapped into shared cultural constructs—“thicc,” “chonky,” “absolute unit”—that, while seemingly lighthearted, carry deeper social meanings rooted in body image and social perception.
As you pointed out, our perception of the world is not neutral; it’s learned and socially constructed, much like how people perceive gender or body size based on cultural schemas. For instance, when the aquarium used these terms, they likely saw them as fun, memetic ways to engage with their audience. But these words are loaded with social meanings related to body image and cultural attitudes toward weight, and they triggered reactions that reflect those deeper social biases. Some people were offended by the terms because they associate them with body-shaming or outdated, inappropriate language, while others found the use of these memes to be awkward and out of touch.
This situation illustrates your point perfectly: we don’t simply “see” the world as it is—our interpretations are filtered through cultural frameworks. The aquarium’s description of Abby the otter wasn’t just a neutral or innocent observation; it was steeped in language that evokes certain attitudes and assumptions about body size, humor, and social relevance. Their post became problematic because it engaged with a set of socially constructed perceptions without fully considering their implications.
As you suggest, the limitations of these frameworks—whether reason, perception, or memes—mean we cannot access an objective truth, but rather interpret the world based on the systems we’ve inherited or adopted. This is why, as you mention, the best way forward might be to consciously choose the frameworks we use, in a way that aligns with the world we want to create. If we accept that perception is always influenced by social biases, like the bias toward binary gender or body stereotypes, then we can also see that memes or cultural symbols are never neutral—they reflect and reinforce the ideas of the society that produced them.
In the aquarium’s case, they ultimately apologized because their use of these terms didn’t align with the values they likely want to promote—such as inclusivity and respect. This supports your argument that, rather than clinging to a belief in objective truth, we should focus on the ethical and practical implications of the frameworks we adopt. The aquarium learned that the memes they were using weren’t just playful—they carried connotations that clashed with the values of many of their audience members.
So, by consciously choosing the language, symbols, and schemas we use, we can shape our world in ways that are more compassionate and just, rather than passively reproducing harmful or outdated social biases. This is why the aquarium’s situation is a good example of how social constructs shape perception, and how choosing more carefully can help us imagine and create a better world.
I agree with you in a lot of ways. I think you’ve correctly identified the problems of subject/object dualism as well as epistemic crisis which is probably the most prominent philosophical problem of our era. It creates all sorts of social problems some of which you correctly identify.
I think when you criticize objectivity, what you are actually criticizing is positivism, or empiricism. When you eliminate objectivity you eliminate the object. I don’t think you’re a solipsist who believes that nothing exists “out there” and that the entire physical universe and everyone in it are reducible to your mere experience of it. You acknowledge a whole variety of ontologies or ways of determining truth, and that contradictions emerge between different ones. This is all extremely important to understand. The piece I think is missing, the flaw in your logic is that you never really escape subject/object dualism by doing away with objectivity; you merely concentrate totally on the subjective. I assume you’re working a lot of this stuff out on your own, which is amazing and precious – I don’t have much if any formal education beyond hs and a little art school myself and at one time not long ago arrived at very similar conclusions as yours. The formal logic I was missing was dialectical reasoning, the conclusion of which is a unity and interrelation between the subjective and objective. IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.
But I’m annoyed by all the down votes you are receiving when I think you are correct in identifying the problems – you’re still working out the solutions which is okay and good. But rather than have a discussion, we just down vote and go. Its incredible how attached people are to their deeply problematic ontological assumptions, despite not really understanding them. The fact is subject/object dualism as the basis of scientific inquiry (and hence industry) is woefully insufficient for interrogating reality. At one time it was historically progressive and relevant, but now it only serves to sustain existing power structures and the status quo.
I wish we had a chance to discuss this face to face, I’m sure it would be a lively debate and sharing of ideas! Given the medium unfortunately, I guess I’ll just see you around. Thanks for the detailed explanation and keep on questioning. In my experience, immediately after believing I have things figured out I gain a new perspective that changes everything. Really keeps things interesting for those of us who want to understand things and aren’t content with just taking it as it comes.
IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.
My perception is the opposite. Being trapped inside one universe is the dead end. Abandoning the universe lets you experience a multiverse. You can use magic and meet fantastic creatures like dragons and gods. Traversing the mythic plane, the world between worlds, is the route to greater knowledge. I never slowed down learning from this realisation. The pace just keeps accelerating.
You lost me. But imagination is rad and cool, and knowledge can be accessed through reason, and reason takes all different forms.
It almost sounds like you’re talking about mysticism but you were just trashing mysticism. In any case, mysticism such as hermetic, qabbalic or taoist mysticism is a fantastic way to learn practical dialectics. Lots of people act like they understand it but clearly don’t. Or don’t apply it evenly which is kind of the same thing.
But are you just talking about pure subjectivity, experiencing the self as the self experiencing itself? Kind of an unconventional and interesting way to search for truth and knowledge.
It’s not a joke. It’s just me dumbing down my spirituality to the level comprehensible by realists, because you said you were having trouble understanding it. Everything sounds dumb when you phrase it realistically, because reality is dumb.
You don’t understand my philosophy, don’t pretend to. I extended you the courtesy of a well thought out detailed and i think pretty intelligent response, and you talk to me about otherkin and dragons, supposedly because you think im too stupid for your spirituality. Enjoy your discord server.
Please elaborate
The situation involving the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s social media post reflects a larger conversation about language, body image, and the changing dynamics of internet culture. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Context
Monterey Bay Aquarium posted a playful description of their otter, Abby, using internet slang such as “thicc,” “absolute unit,” “chonky,” and “OH LAWD SHE COMIN.” These terms are often used in meme culture to humorously describe animals or objects that are notably large or heavy. However, in this case, their attempt at humor backfired, leading to criticism from different sides.
Two Main Sources of Criticism:
Some of the backlash came from people who are sensitive to the use of body-related language, especially when it reflects patterns of speech that have been used to demean or objectify individuals based on their size. While these terms were aimed at an otter in a lighthearted context, many people found the language problematic because it echoed the same phrases often used to mock or stereotype overweight individuals.
“Thicc”: Originally used in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) to describe women with curvier, fuller bodies in an empowering way, it has since been appropriated and sometimes trivialized in mainstream culture.
“Chonky”: A playful way to describe overweight animals, this word has also been associated with memes, but it could easily be read as part of a larger discourse around weight and body shaming.
For those focused on body positivity, the casual use of these terms to describe an animal risked reinforcing harmful stereotypes or contributing to fat-shaming attitudes, even if unintentionally.
Another line of criticism came from people who found the use of these internet terms, especially “OH LAWD SHE COMIN” and “absolute unit,” to be outdated or cringe-worthy. Internet slang and memes evolve rapidly, and by the time a brand or institution like an aquarium adopts such language, it may feel forced or out of touch with current online trends.
Cringe: When brands or institutions attempt to tap into internet culture for humor or relevance, they often walk a fine line. If the language feels dated, the attempt at engagement can fall flat, seeming awkward or as if they’re trying too hard to be relatable. In this case, the aquarium’s use of memes that had already peaked in popularity a few years earlier came off as inauthentic and “cringe.”
The Apology
Given the backlash from both groups — those concerned about body shaming and those put off by the awkward use of outdated internet slang — the aquarium felt compelled to issue a general apology. They likely realized that even though the intent was harmless and playful, the execution didn’t sit well with a broad audience, touching on sensitive issues related to body image while also missing the mark in terms of cultural relevance.
Their apology suggests they understood that humor based on memes, especially those with underlying connotations related to body image, can be tricky to navigate — especially for an organization with a broad and diverse audience. They likely recognized the need to be more thoughtful in their social media language to avoid offending or alienating people unintentionally. In Summary:
The situation highlights how language, particularly in the realm of social media and memes, is a minefield of interpretations. What might seem funny or harmless to one group can easily offend or annoy another. In this case, the aquarium’s use of dated internet slang and body-related terms sparked critiques from body positivity advocates and those sensitive to outdated meme culture, leading to their public apology. This underscores the importance of understanding both the implications of the language used and the fast-moving nature of internet trends, especially for brands or institutions seeking to engage with the public online.
I wasn’t asking for an explanation of the post, I was asking for an explanation of the view objectivity doesn’t exist, and from another user in fact. I see that you also responded to it and I think your analysis and the way you link it with the post is clear and correct. I especially appreciate how your conclusion arrives at a deepening compassion and relation to the other although you don’t explain exactly how to arrive at this, but if I missed that point in your response, I apologise. In my view is achieved not through decimation of the concept, but through unification of subject and object into a monist whole. But otherwise I agree with you, the existence of epistemological difference does not negate the entire field of ontology; it merely suggests a multitude that is socially determined and fluid.
I assume you were giving such a long and detailed explanation in the interest of accessibility, and not doing a bit – for this I deeply appreciate your effort.
Hello I misread the interface and believed your comment was a first level reply to the post.
I figured. Thanks again!
Reason offers no path to objective truth. Syllogism requires premises. Premises require axioms. Reason and logic cannot create knowledge ex nihilo. They can only create knowledge within an already extant framework.
Empiricism is equally flawed, for the ghost in the machine problem is bidirectional. Many philosophers have asked how a construct of information, such as the human mind, can control a construct of matter such as the body. But I ask the reverse question, how can information perceive matter? How can matter act upon information? As we can see from the difficulty babies and children have with perceiving the world, perception is a learned process. How do we know we’ve learned it correctly? How do we know we’re not just reproducing social biases? The answer is that we certainly know that our perception is indeed a reproduction of social bias. For example, our perception of other people as men or women is quite immediate to us. We notice it before we can name any details that lead us to this perception. Yet some people are nonbinary, and transphobes perceive others as male or female when it is untrue and they are both or neither. The symbols that make up our perception, our schemas, are indeed founded upon social bias. They are not the source of truth.
And am I to point out the flaws with mysticism as well? I’m sure you are already familiar with those.
Thus the only answer is to consciously choose our axioms and our schemas, with the aim of imagining into being a better world, or at least the tools to create one. We cannot do this if we chain ourselves to belief in the objective.
You’re raising some important points about the limitations of reason, empiricism, and mysticism when it comes to accessing objective truth. Just as reason relies on premises that are themselves based on unproven axioms, our understanding of the world through perception is also shaped by social biases rather than direct access to an objective reality. This connects to the situation with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where their use of internet slang to describe an otter tapped into shared cultural constructs—“thicc,” “chonky,” “absolute unit”—that, while seemingly lighthearted, carry deeper social meanings rooted in body image and social perception.
As you pointed out, our perception of the world is not neutral; it’s learned and socially constructed, much like how people perceive gender or body size based on cultural schemas. For instance, when the aquarium used these terms, they likely saw them as fun, memetic ways to engage with their audience. But these words are loaded with social meanings related to body image and cultural attitudes toward weight, and they triggered reactions that reflect those deeper social biases. Some people were offended by the terms because they associate them with body-shaming or outdated, inappropriate language, while others found the use of these memes to be awkward and out of touch.
This situation illustrates your point perfectly: we don’t simply “see” the world as it is—our interpretations are filtered through cultural frameworks. The aquarium’s description of Abby the otter wasn’t just a neutral or innocent observation; it was steeped in language that evokes certain attitudes and assumptions about body size, humor, and social relevance. Their post became problematic because it engaged with a set of socially constructed perceptions without fully considering their implications.
As you suggest, the limitations of these frameworks—whether reason, perception, or memes—mean we cannot access an objective truth, but rather interpret the world based on the systems we’ve inherited or adopted. This is why, as you mention, the best way forward might be to consciously choose the frameworks we use, in a way that aligns with the world we want to create. If we accept that perception is always influenced by social biases, like the bias toward binary gender or body stereotypes, then we can also see that memes or cultural symbols are never neutral—they reflect and reinforce the ideas of the society that produced them.
In the aquarium’s case, they ultimately apologized because their use of these terms didn’t align with the values they likely want to promote—such as inclusivity and respect. This supports your argument that, rather than clinging to a belief in objective truth, we should focus on the ethical and practical implications of the frameworks we adopt. The aquarium learned that the memes they were using weren’t just playful—they carried connotations that clashed with the values of many of their audience members.
So, by consciously choosing the language, symbols, and schemas we use, we can shape our world in ways that are more compassionate and just, rather than passively reproducing harmful or outdated social biases. This is why the aquarium’s situation is a good example of how social constructs shape perception, and how choosing more carefully can help us imagine and create a better world.
I agree with you in a lot of ways. I think you’ve correctly identified the problems of subject/object dualism as well as epistemic crisis which is probably the most prominent philosophical problem of our era. It creates all sorts of social problems some of which you correctly identify.
I think when you criticize objectivity, what you are actually criticizing is positivism, or empiricism. When you eliminate objectivity you eliminate the object. I don’t think you’re a solipsist who believes that nothing exists “out there” and that the entire physical universe and everyone in it are reducible to your mere experience of it. You acknowledge a whole variety of ontologies or ways of determining truth, and that contradictions emerge between different ones. This is all extremely important to understand. The piece I think is missing, the flaw in your logic is that you never really escape subject/object dualism by doing away with objectivity; you merely concentrate totally on the subjective. I assume you’re working a lot of this stuff out on your own, which is amazing and precious – I don’t have much if any formal education beyond hs and a little art school myself and at one time not long ago arrived at very similar conclusions as yours. The formal logic I was missing was dialectical reasoning, the conclusion of which is a unity and interrelation between the subjective and objective. IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.
But I’m annoyed by all the down votes you are receiving when I think you are correct in identifying the problems – you’re still working out the solutions which is okay and good. But rather than have a discussion, we just down vote and go. Its incredible how attached people are to their deeply problematic ontological assumptions, despite not really understanding them. The fact is subject/object dualism as the basis of scientific inquiry (and hence industry) is woefully insufficient for interrogating reality. At one time it was historically progressive and relevant, but now it only serves to sustain existing power structures and the status quo.
I wish we had a chance to discuss this face to face, I’m sure it would be a lively debate and sharing of ideas! Given the medium unfortunately, I guess I’ll just see you around. Thanks for the detailed explanation and keep on questioning. In my experience, immediately after believing I have things figured out I gain a new perspective that changes everything. Really keeps things interesting for those of us who want to understand things and aren’t content with just taking it as it comes.
My perception is the opposite. Being trapped inside one universe is the dead end. Abandoning the universe lets you experience a multiverse. You can use magic and meet fantastic creatures like dragons and gods. Traversing the mythic plane, the world between worlds, is the route to greater knowledge. I never slowed down learning from this realisation. The pace just keeps accelerating.
You lost me. But imagination is rad and cool, and knowledge can be accessed through reason, and reason takes all different forms.
It almost sounds like you’re talking about mysticism but you were just trashing mysticism. In any case, mysticism such as hermetic, qabbalic or taoist mysticism is a fantastic way to learn practical dialectics. Lots of people act like they understand it but clearly don’t. Or don’t apply it evenly which is kind of the same thing.
But are you just talking about pure subjectivity, experiencing the self as the self experiencing itself? Kind of an unconventional and interesting way to search for truth and knowledge.
I’m talking about joining otherkin discord servers and watching OSP videos.
Oh har har
Why the fuck do I even bother I stg
It’s not a joke. It’s just me dumbing down my spirituality to the level comprehensible by realists, because you said you were having trouble understanding it. Everything sounds dumb when you phrase it realistically, because reality is dumb.
You don’t understand my philosophy, don’t pretend to. I extended you the courtesy of a well thought out detailed and i think pretty intelligent response, and you talk to me about otherkin and dragons, supposedly because you think im too stupid for your spirituality. Enjoy your discord server.