I have a particular loathing for the "If one member of group X does something I don't like I am 100% justified in hating the entire group and denying them rights" argument. (I realise that guy plausibly isn't who you were complaining about, but he's the one that particularly annoyed me :))
The difference is that everyone knows it's totally reasonable for black people to ride up at the front, noone with any sense would object to that. But gay marriage, that's pretty out there!
Similarly, the way women got the vote was by saying "Um, hello chaps, could we possibly have the vote?" and all the men went "Good heavens, do you not have the vote? Well that's just silly. Here you are!" and everyone was happy and went out for tea.
Very convincing there.bec_87rbNovember 23 2008, 13:25:45 UTC
I suspect that isn't the way to change anybody's mind about your opinion. Several replies mention that if you do snitty little confrontational things to make a point, you make the other person dig their heels in.
Plus, you look like a putz. It says that you are placing your politics above your relationship with the person, and it is definitely a "gotcha" put down. It's impolite and not persuasive. It would be like smugly lecturing a gay friend on how gay marriage would ruin modern civilization, and expecting them to smack their forehead and go,"OMG, now I see! About that gay marriage, thing? Never mind. My bad."
Re: Very convincing there.bec_87rbNovember 23 2008, 22:11:43 UTC
I'm just saying, the poster's actions will get them applause from people who already agree with them. It'll just make the other person ticked off, which pushes them further from the opinion you want them to adopt. But, hey, whatever. It's all good to me.
I'm not sure it gets the point across very well. One of the claims by the ignorant bastards who voted for proposition 8 is that the other side are attacking marriage. If you decide to make your point by saying "I don't believe in marriage" sadly enough they're likely respond with "well we expected as much you godless liberal."
That could very well be. I somehow think that the only way this could work is if each couple was magically transported to a bizarro world where everyone was in on the game except for them, and they didn't get to wake up until they got it. So yeah, satisfying thought experiment maybe, but I'm not sure if anyone would actually try it.
Also, "no fair, I voted no on 8!" is sort of hilarious, too. Overprotective much? Water, duck's back. Work on it.
How utterly baffling. I certainly agree that it might not be the best form of advocacy to begin conversations with "Are you married? Yes? Well, actually, I no longer recognize marriage." But we, as a nation, have agreed that [collective] personal religious convictions are sufficient to deny people a right (at least, putting aside the "homosexuals can get married, they just have to marry Henry VIII someone of the same race according to the laws propounded in Leviticus someone of the opposite gender" argument). A personal refusal to recognize marriage of any sort strikes me as a sane and reasoned response to this injustice.
Yes, every single one of them. Thanks, btw - we were just waiting for you to meet everyone in America and make a decision about that, so we could change the flag to something that mentions humor and cretins.
Now we are still waiting on your decision as to whether all of America has the right taste in music, and whether we are all fat and wear white athletic shoes. Do less us know when you decide, so we can include that in the new flag as well? Thanx!
There's a tasty irony in your having ignored the modifier 'humorless' in the above reply.
The real point I was aiming at was that the commentors went off half-cocked about an absurd generalization, and most of them had no sense of humor about what the Religious Right's used, this election cycle, in an amazingly cynical way. Sorry you got hung up on someone overgeneralizing. Have a good laugh at my expense- you sound as if you sorely need one
Comments 19
Reply
Reply
Reply
Similarly, the way women got the vote was by saying "Um, hello chaps, could we possibly have the vote?" and all the men went "Good heavens, do you not have the vote? Well that's just silly. Here you are!" and everyone was happy and went out for tea.
Reply
Plus, you look like a putz. It says that you are placing your politics above your relationship with the person, and it is definitely a "gotcha" put down. It's impolite and not persuasive. It would be like smugly lecturing a gay friend on how gay marriage would ruin modern civilization, and expecting them to smack their forehead and go,"OMG, now I see! About that gay marriage, thing? Never mind. My bad."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
They really don't understand irony....
Reply
Also, "no fair, I voted no on 8!" is sort of hilarious, too. Overprotective much? Water, duck's back. Work on it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now we are still waiting on your decision as to whether all of America has the right taste in music, and whether we are all fat and wear white athletic shoes. Do less us know when you decide, so we can include that in the new flag as well? Thanx!
Reply
The real point I was aiming at was that the commentors went off half-cocked about an absurd generalization, and most of them had no sense of humor about what the Religious Right's used, this election cycle, in an amazingly cynical way. Sorry you got hung up on someone overgeneralizing. Have a good laugh at my expense- you sound as if you sorely need one
Reply
Leave a comment