I wrote an incredibly long response that wouldn't post because of its length, so instead I'm going to write a very small one.
You seem to have taken my response uncharitably as though it were a pedantic jostle for intellectual dominance or a set of veiled ad hominems & malicious insinuations. You also kept splitting predicate combinations meant to be interpreted holistically--doing so to any set of ideas which force it to crumble, as no intellectual edifice can withstand catechretic fracture.
I will say this then. In places you seem to beg the question. I propose a certain definition or to separate two concepts & you'll respond to the effect of "well of these two things are defined differently or are identical then this follows"--which, of course, would be true, but that's exactly what's at dispute.
Namely:
I do not see all representation of meaningfully objectifying in a morally dubious way
I do not see all objectification as inherently violent, for example, where it is the object of irony or critique or a foil for a productive intervention; ethnography & socialist realist literature both fit this mold.
I do not see objectification as necessary to commit violence as there is subjectifying violence, just as above here is objectifying criticism.
I do not see objectifying representations as the basis for the mass slaughter of animals.
Additionally, I do not think animals care st all about objectifying representations & I don't see why we should then be insulted on their behalf.
All concepts, language, art etc requires objectifying representation
Conversely, the ineffability of subjectivity means empathy is insufficient for ethics absent performative & categorical inclusion
I do not think acknowledging differences between humans & non human animals & non human animals from each other amounts to morally ranking them--it is simply the case that meta cognitive self awareness is uncommon in animal life, just as not all animals are social, fewer are cultural, the fewest are self aware & of those self aware only one animal has a sophisticated external scaffold of representational content sufficient to allow for self manipulation. This isn't a moral claim. That chimps, dogs, dolphins & elephants are more socio cognitively similar to each other & humans doesn't necessarily afford them extra status.
If you assume that animals can be subjectively harmed by objectification, then you must assert they can be patronized, which objecting to humorous representations does.
All actions in an inter connected functional system cause harm; there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Indeed, therefore, where two options are equally harmful, one must choose with reference to another criteria. But there's another issue too--harm on the level of form & substance can contradict each other. So, for example, while respectability politics can certain alleviate some personal harm, it reproduces the politics causing it. Char