Irony. Hypocrisy. and Debate.

[permetaform]

So apparently there's much a-buzz about a certain It in Austin, TX these past few days. (as pointed out by notapipe) Long story short?

Wife of Republican governor (of TX) supposedly leaving him soon.

Supposed Reason: "...his extramarital excursions of the male variety." (quoted from here)

Yes, you've read that right. (There's much relevant linkage here, here, and here.)

The other guy, supposedly?

Apparently it's the Secretary of State.

::twitch:: dudeonastick I don't think I can make this up if I tried.

oh. aheh. ::hides the polislash:: ahem. you know what I mean...

And it's not even the fact that the intimation of a relationship makes me cackle with glee of a very current_affairs and LexLuthorInOffice sort of way. It's not even the fact that this is hypocrisy right in the face of it all and etc. etc.

'Cause right now I'm kinda torn between the "don't bash the gay!" with the "you spineless, powergrubbing asswipe." ('cause Republican Gov. from Texas who signed certain 'marriage' related bills? yes.)

I kinda just pity him, if it's true, because the dude signed the TX defense of marriage act and there's pretty much near no place he can go to get support now. The right-wingers hate his guts, the liberals hate his guts, and everyone else is screaming "hypocrite!" The poor schmuck. Kinda makes you want to tar and feather him, eh?

[]

And a semi-related touch on the topic of wayfairer's rant on the slasher who was against gay marriage...

::twitchy::

okay, I'm just kinda gonna put my neck out there an mention that even though the stance seems awful strange, perhaps it's not *entirely* off-the-wall?

I mean, one could read non-con, and not support it right?

*Granted*, rape hurts other people, whereas the argument goes that homosexuality involves two concenting adults and thus hurts no one.

However, the view *exists* that gay marriage will hurt other people, too, and no matter how illogical that view may seem, it is held and believed in and I'm not sure a rant will entirely *work* (although the prescence of a rant makes *me* feel better).

An example perhaps:

Many of the asians in my aquaintance are familiar with the practice of assigning kids problem sets of math and grammar as soon as it the concepts could be pounded into their little heads; afterschool tutoring, for as much as could be handled, piano lessons down the throat and violin lessons if you can manage.

It's a method of developing mental discipline, you might say, and I've come across people who were *horrified* at the concept, who've said that it is *detrimental* to the kids (that it *hurts* the kids) and that they've never met a happy asian family.

And yet *I'm* still probably gonna do the same for my kids, because *I* believe that the early training has helped my mind develop and that *I* believe that it does no harm.

::shrugs:: Now, I know the example may not be the best, and the parallels are weak but. My point is, it's all subjective, no?

And, yes perhaps it's true that guardian_writer was out of line in stating her opinion, I haven't had a chance to read her exact words, and I'm not quite sure how much she was aware that her words were a direct slap in the face to possibly a significant percentage of her friendslist, but I'm glad that she made her opinion known.

Stunned at the tactlessness and absurdity and hypocrisy of it, but glad nevertheless.

It's in the same way that I'm glad for wayfairer's rant, even though I kinda feel that the rant might not entirely get through, on an argumentative basis, because of how automatically defensive the person to whom it is addressed might get. As a stump speech, it is marvelous, it is wonderful for rallying the troops and making one feel justified and happy on our moral high ground.

As a persuasive argument however, it...might not get heard, if y'know what I mean. I kinda feel that it might fall short of it's goal of persuasion, since no ground was given, no leeway, no mercy.

I'm not sure which Book of War (Sun Tsu or Machiavelli or ?) it is where it state to never corner an enemy; do so and they'll have no retreat. Do so and they'll have nothing to lose, and can you say flame war? yes.

::wry smile:: In any case, voila! Welcome to the rammifications of free speech!

'Cause really?

Free speech means that I have a responsibility to be offended, sometimes on a daily basis, and not to 'strike' back but rather to carefully 'engage'.

Free speech (in it's plural form, in society, in context) not only means to be able to rant at will in one's own corner of the 'net or the world or whereever one might be, but to be challenged in the speaking.

And in some way...In some way it's better, ne?, to be challenged in the speaking. It's veritable proof that you (as a person, as an entity, as an experience, as a group of thoughts, as a bunch of ideas) are not only not alone, but that you are unique.

Or at least that's how I view it.

[]

In sight of the previous rant on free speech, may I extend hugs to calichan, ladyjaida, fabu, stephdray, carmarthen, marquesate, lasergirl69, cawti, franzeska, d_r_o_n_e, and every which one of you that've ever willingly [or not? ::wink::] discussed a topic on which we've disagreed. I'm a brat sometimes when I argue (and I try to watch that though I sometimes don't succeed) and please know that I always enjoy the different opinions and viewpoints presented because ya'll are so refreshingly diverse.

[]

...::blinkies:: y'know. I wonder how much my frustration/bratty-ness comes through in my writing.

...

::blush::

erm. aheh.

Let's just say that the 'delete' key? It's a blessing.

Then again, I'm firmly of the 'bite your tongue if you can't say it nicely' philosophy (in its "nice=precise=effective" definition). So.

[]

Along perhaps similar topics, an old censorship post by przed, and a post rejecting the use of the "semicolon" argument to impede conservative protestors by theferrett (pointed out by wayfairer).

The last in particular I like and find telling. My personal reactions occur something along the lines of "Well, it's about *time* that someone 'cheated' for civil rights!" and being vaguely guilty at that thought because you don't *stoop* to your opponent's level and THEN being appalled because, dude, that's so gryffindor and you can't get nowhere if you don't have at *least* as effective tactics as the opposition.

::sporfle:: welcome to my brain.