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.

Comments

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

*LOL* I really can't even remember where when and on what we disagreed, and you know why? I am utterly and absolutely and hyper-strongly opinionated. I am so opinionated that I LOVE for people to have other opinions and be equally opinionated, because isn't it fun???

My best friends have opposite opinions to me on most things and we sometimes burst out laughing because we cannot possibly agree, but we respect each other and we know we are opinionated.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate (can I add some more 'hates', please? ;-) people who always do a meak 'in my humble opnion' or 'may/might I please possibly say that I might possibly have this wee little totally unimportant opinion'.

(exagerrations? Moi? No.... :-)

Why? I mean you have an opinion, fine, GO ON! Say it out loud, be controversial if you want to be but stick to your bloody opinions and don't crawl/spit-lick or do the humble-act.

Stay true to yourself and what you believe in. Opinions are good, rants are good, and even serious pissed-offedness is good. Is all good, just as long as one doesn't humble and bow down. Pah!

Re:

[permetaform]

heh, culture shock.

'Cause thing is, more often than not you're not always dealing with friends in regards to whatever the disagreement is. Sometimes the respect *isn't* there. It might not even be casual aquaintances, and I understand the need to not bow down BUT there's also a need to arrive to a place where you'd both be equally heard.

And it's not always the case that the loudest and proudest one will win the case, 'cause sometimes I simply don't have the lung power. And it is amazing how sometimes a "pardon me?" will smooth the way for discussion.

All in all, I would rather do a 'humble-act' than be misunderstood; especially considering that my journal is generally unlocked and basically anybody could browse.

Re:

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

Yes, I suppose culture shock.

Re:

[permetaform]

=) blame it on my asian. ::hugs::

Re:

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

Nah *chuckle*

a) I don't like blaming others and
b) blame it on me being German

Re:

[permetaform]

oh shush, I'm a little part German too.

Re:

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

Ahhh, but I'm a BIG part German and another large chunk Russian, plus come from a very outspoken part of the country.

:-)

Re:

[permetaform]

::giggles:: very well then, I concede the floor madame =)

[evyg.livejournal.com]

call me crazy, but i see a clear distinction between being gay/bisexual and advocating same-sex marriage. if you choose to ignore the aspect of personal freedom/freedom of choice and all that, the phenomenon of same-sex marriage can still be deemed "harmful" to society and economics and what have you. marriage, as a historical phenomenon, is a sacred union sanctioned by the church, in order to ensure the breeding, upbringing and financing of future citizens, so that they won't be a liability to the state.

allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women, is not within the church's best interest (but as church and state are now separate, that wouldn't really pose an issue), but neither within the state's. the only compelling REASON same-sex marriages should be allowed is the highly personal statement that "everyone should be allowed to love who they want", and as obvious as this may seem to most of us, it is not something that can be formulated and argued in legal terms (also, you ARE allowed to love whomever you want, and even live with whomever you want; it's just the technical term "marriage" and its traditional and financial advantages that are out of your reach).

there are no real advantages to the state in allowing same-sex marriages, other than perhaps a somewhat higher percentage of happy citizens, which honestly isn't that big a concern when you have money tipping the scale. it can be argued that a gay couple doesn't breed, thus negating the whole "point" of marriage as an institution.

and i'm not saying that these aren't outdated views from the angle of our newer society, or that i'm against same-sex marriage (in fact i am very much for), but as we push further and further towards individualism and liberalism, we have to keep in mind the aspects that make up society: what's best for you isn't always best for the group, and vice versa.

...also, isn't the question of same-sex marriage mainly (if not purely) a Christian debate? considering we have religious freedom in most western countries, it's kind of an interesting log to throw onto the fire.

Re:

[permetaform]

very true, also I've gotta raise my eyebrow at this:

the only compelling REASON same-sex marriages should be allowed is the highly personal statement that "everyone should be allowed to love who they want"

because it's gotten to be more on a civil rights issue as well, were the financial advantages aren't there. True, the financial advantages are there *because* a breeding couple is advantageous to the state. However, that would therefore pretty much negate anybody who's barren or sterile and couples who choose to remain childless. ::shrugs::

but as we push further and further towards individualism and liberalism, we have to keep in mind the aspects that make up society: what's best for you isn't always best for the group, and vice versa.

ooo, also a good argument. I was going more for the 'different perspectives' angle than not, though that statement will get you into the quagmire of the "What's best for the country" debate (which, actually, I think our democratic candidates are duking out right at this moment ::snicker:: poor fellows, America is a tough crowd, to say the least).

isn't the question of same-sex marriage mainly (if not purely) a Christian debate?

Well, there's the matter of civil rights, really, with the differentiation of that and 'marriage' and the "Separate is NOT equal" argument that's paralleled in Brown vs. Board of Education (ie. the segregation of blacks and whites in the school system)

Re:

[evyg.livejournal.com]

"what's best for the country" is a very interesting way of putting things: it's the same quagmire as "society being entirely made up by individuals and should therefore cater to the individual's interests/needs, but what's best for the individual/s isn't always best for the society as a whole" - only on a larger scale, as this involves the country as an outwards representative as well.

Re:

[permetaform]

yeah; a brain-teaser of magnificently spastic porportions...::snerk:: and considering which, I'm sometimes remarkably pleased that it's all managed to hold up as well as it has.

[melusina]

Ooh, thanks for the heads up on Rick Perry (Gov. of TX). I'm right here in Austin, so I'm going to tap all my sources for the latest dirt. (There's really nothing so satisfying as the exposure of a hypocrite.)

I'm still trying to clarify my thoughts on the anti-gay marriage slasher and I may post more about this on my journal, but the short answer, for me, has to do with objectification. There's an accusation that's levied at slashers that we're objectifying gay men and homosexual desire for our own sexual fulfillment. Generally, I think this is hogwash, but in the case of someone who believes homosexual *behavior* is wrong and yet reads, and more importantly *writes* slash, I feel it is somewhat accurate.

The original post has been deleted or friends locked, so I can't read the writer's exact words, but from what was quoted in someone else's journal, she seems to be saying that it's ok for her to be aroused by reading / writing about homosexuality, but not for homosexual individuals to enjoy their sexuality. It feels disrespectful to a whole community of people, in a way that chan or noncon doesn't. Perhaps this is because people don't generally publicly identify themselves as pedophiles or rapists. Perhaps it's also because fanfic generally handles chan and noncon in a fantastical way, which encourages the viewer to disassociate the depiction from reality.

I also can't remember when we disagreed, certainly I've never seen you act like "a brat"!

[permetaform]

heh, I'm not entirely certain as to what's going on with Perry, and people are saying that the conservative news are going to make a major cover-up on it or something. I mean, at first glace it seems to be rumor mills, but apparently there's aLOT of sources backing it up...

As for the anti-gay-marriage slasher? I seriously wonder what she thought her friendslist and/or lj readership was composed of, because there's several prominent slashers on her friendslist who are activists and/or out, to post something like that in an unlocked post is really asking for it.

Even still, I think it's perhaps better known than kept festered.

As for the last, I think we've disagreed somewhere down the line because I participate in you frequent LJ discussions...I'm not exactly sure which. As for the brattiness, let me just bless the 'delete' key. ;)

[lasergirl.livejournal.com]

I enjoy disagreeing with you, those are some of my best discussions.

♥

(I'm sick too if it's any consolation. probably isn't, but... hehh.)

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

It wasn't the 'gay marriage' statement that annoyed me in that original post; it was the statement about homosexuality being wrong in general.

But I definitely agree with you that the response post was probably too forceful. It was a rant, through and through, and I didn't agree with how it presented parts of its case.

[calicokat.livejournal.com]

*laughs* This was a great post to wake up to. Politician smut and fandom wank... I just wish I'd a coffee. Hmm... Well, not much to say on the Gov. there, mostly I'm just sitting here with an evil smirk on my face. On the second matter, I think she had a right to say what she said, I just don't think it was very premeditated. She's probably feeling very confused about her beliefs, and hopefully this will bring her a step closer to figuring them out. Let's just hope that the response she got isn't going to make it a step in the wrong direction. :(

Hee! Hey, I respect anyone who can challange me in an argument. I have no time for people that back down. XD;; Particularly since sometimes I'm not right at all!

[lierdumoa.livejournal.com]

I think my initial reaction to guardian_writer's statement would have been, "Hypocrite! Hypocrite!" Now that I've thought about it though, I suppose I can understand it. Apparently she likes how slash makes her feel, but she feels it's morally wrong. Well a lot of people feel the same way about adultery, and if they suddenly decide that they're not going to cheat on their spouses anymore, than good for them.

So really, I feel a bit sorry for her. I think I'd be rather miserable if I were ashamed of myself for writing slash, especially considering the amount of free time I've devoted to this particular hobby. I *don't* think there is anything morally wrong with gay marriage. Just the opposite. I think it is morally wrong to deny gay people the right to marry. I do hope that she either changes her beliefs or withdraws herself from the slash community. Because if she *doesn't* have some sort of conversion, she'll probably end up being a pariah in the community anyway.

Personally, I don't have a problem with anything she said. I don't agree with any of it, but I won't take issue with it. However, if I were on her friends list, I would probably defriend her, simply because I don't see the point of having someone on my friends list whose fundamental beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine.



And as to the political scandal -- *sporfle* That's fricking hilarious!!! The governor of Texas?!?!?

Re:

[permetaform]

::hugs:: I feel that way too.

Re:

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the gayness in Texas.

*snerkling*

No wonder the White House Gnome is so defensive all the time.

Re:

[permetaform]

Meh, I keep wishing that I'd actually managed to read the darn thing before it was locked down.

And I'm not entirely sure you could call it 'presenting' its case although it *would* induce much flag waving. All in all, I feel it serves as a rallying cry more than a persuasive document to the opposition (which, heh, might actually tie in neatly with my 'intended' social audience vs. 'actual' literary audience post that I've mentioned in my bad!fic post).

[jenna-thorn.livejournal.com]

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'.

And hugs back at ya. I'll walk away from a screaming match, but I'll happily engage in an civilized exploration of disimilar opinions. Luckily, most of the folks I 'talk' to on a regular basis are relatively civilized.

But I'm not sure that I agree with 'offended' in your statement above. I see offensive things on a daily basis and will recoil and avert my attention. I prefer the thought of being challenged, of having my normal pattern of life disrupted enough to force me to examine my preconceptions, my assumptions and my routine. Being offended doesn't trigger an introspective reaction; I'll turn away with a grimace. It's the difference between Mapplethrope and Larry Flynt, I think.

::giggles::

[permetaform]

You've heard of the time when Bush called the Canadian PM's aid "pretty", yes?? (if you haven't check it out, the dialogue that puts the quote in context if anything makes it *worse*)

Re: ::giggles::

[guede-mazaka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I avidly read about that gaffe. He's a textbook case of Seth Gecko's 'Do what I say, not do as I do.'

Re:

[permetaform]

huh, I guess that's valid, except:

Being offended doesn't trigger an introspective reaction

...which was part of the point I was trying to make. The rant I've linked to seems to me like an 'offended' reaction; some people just turn away when offended while others go on the attack. Being offended doesn't *naturally* trigger an introspective reaction, and I find that I myself usually just turn away and when I realize that I'm doing it I turn back.

For a long long time I didn't *let* myself get offended, partially because I didn't even recognize that I was being offended and partially because I was protecting myself from the majority of things that offend me.

In effect I was stunting my own right to freedom of speech because I didn't want to admit there was anything that needed saying.