First, little tip, phrases like:

no intellectual edifice can withstand catechretic fracture. are really fucking annoying, and just serve to turn people against you. Stop using more words to make yourself seem intelligent, because it makes you seem like a fucking asshole and it doesn't help facilitate a conversation.

Onto your points:

I do not see all representation of meaningfully objectifying in a morally dubious way

What does this mean? Are you saying that objectifying somebody isn't inherently violent because that is categorically false, it causes psychological violence and justifies physical violence because you remove their moral weight.

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.

Okay so you've clarified here, but the two examples you give "ethnography & socialist realist literature" aren't examples of objectifying people, because it doesn't treat subjects as objects.

I do not see objectification as necessary to commit violence as there is subjectifying violence, just as above here is objectifying criticism.

A. You necessarily have to dehumanize people to commit violence against them, to decrease their moral weight in whatever moral framework a person is operating under. B. What the hell is "subjectifying violence", I've never heard this term-of-art, can you give an example of this and a brief definition. C. Again, I don't know what "objectifying criticism" is, or I guess its inverse "subjectifying criticism" because your examples of criticism don't objectify anybody.

I do not see objectifying representations as the basis for the mass slaughter of animals.

Whats the basis of mass slaughter for animals then? If it isn't that we treat them as objects and tools to be used and therefore without moral weight why do we kill them?

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.

I already clarified this in my reply, animals do not feel the psychological violence of being objectified, but that doesn't mean they can't experience the physical harm of it. I also never said I was insulted, just that I can defend animals on their behalf.

All concepts, language, art etc requires objectifying representation

Again I have no idea what "objectifying representation" is. Nor why language would require it.

Conversely, the ineffability of subjectivity means empathy is insufficient for ethics absent performative & categorical inclusion

See this is why you shouldn't try to use fancy words. How can subjectivity be ineffable? Do you mean its impossible to explain to somebody else your subject position? How does that relate to ethics? Are you saying we need to rethink we approach communication and include broader forms of communication as necessary?

I do not think ... afford them extra status.

I'm not really sure how this relates to our conversation. Is this in reply to where I said you are saying humans are superior? Because if so, either A. You just shouldn't have given this information because it shouldn't affect your moral decision making or B. It does affect your decision making, and you are ranking beings.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by subjectively harmed, but I'll clarify my position again:

Animals cannot be psychologically harmed by the immediate act of objectification, in the same way for instance black people can be. HOWEVER, putting animals at the level of the object, a tool to be used, opens up paths for instances of psychological and physical violence that animals can experience. | I also don't understand how I'm patronizing animals, according to you they literally don't know they're being objectified. Should I not protect them?

I think point 10 got cut off.