?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile AT: Gate of Ivory, Gate of Horn Previous Previous Next Next
Please to SOD OFF, you Tesco Torquemadas. - Wemyss's Appalling Hobby:
From the Party Guilty of Committing 'Gate of Ivory, Gate of Horn'
wemyss
wemyss
Please to SOD OFF, you Tesco Torquemadas.

‘We[1] would like to know[2] who really believes[3] in gay rights[4] on livejournal.[5] There is no bribe of a miracle or anything like that.[6] If you truly believe[7] in gay rights, then repost this and title the post as “Gay Rights”.  If you don’t believe in gay rights, then just ignore this.[8] Thanks.’[9]



[1] ‘We’?  Who, precisely, are ‘we’?  The Gestapo, the KGB?  The RSPB, the WI?  Ming?  Gordon?  Dave?  WHO?

[2] Why?  What business is it of yours?  Are you making a list?  This is why one would like to know who ‘WE’ are in all this, it has a great deal to do with what sort of list you’d be likely to make.

[3] ‘Really’ believes?  That has a more-than-faintly ominous ring to it, doesn’t it.  One has heard similar language before: from such as Torquemada, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, Dzerzhinsky, Heydrich, Beria, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, UBL….

[4] Ah, but how do you define the term?  Am I to be dragged off to the re-education camps if we simply disagree on what these are, or is that reserved only for those who disagree to a greater degree than a mere Aristotelian ‘defining of terms’?

[5] Did you perhaps mean ‘who on livejournal believes in gay rights’?  Or do you really mean to ask, Who believes that gays have rights-on-livejournal?  Anyone who can type – and, rather evidently, a lot of people who cannot – has rights on livejournal.

[6] Well, that’s a relief.  I am made nervous by unidentified collectives that demand, as of right, to know my ‘real’ views so they can make a list of dissidents; I am made EXTREMELY nervous by unidentified collectives that demand, as of right, to know my ‘real’ views so they can make a list of dissidents and who claim the power to perform miracles.  They tend to end by running Inquisitions or waging jihad.

[7] I see we are back to the ideological purity issue, ‘inventing new treasons of mind and heart’.

[8] But if I just ignore this, do you presume that I do not, in my way, believe in certain rights for gays (and lesbians, to be sure)?  I get the impression that you do so presume.  In fact, the impression is irresistible, and the underlying air of menace, palpable.  Indeed, it calls up a very familiar scene, that of the trial of Thomas More, with Thomas Cromwell arguing that More’s silence on ‘the King’s Great Matter’ was a positive assertion of a position on the issue, and More countering that the legal maxim was that silence gives assent, that his not condemning the divorce could not legally be made into an argument that he ‘privily opposed it’.  The moral to be drawn is rather pointed, I think.  This sort of inquisition is the proper province of the would-be tyrannical, not the believers in liberty, so I am less than convinced of your virtue, o Anonymous Collective ‘We’, for all your bleating about ‘rights’.  I happen to be gay.  Whether I were or not, however, I have natural rights, and these include the right of a free conscience and the right to be free of such appalling intrusions as the petty inquisition you are running here.  There is a considerable difference in asking, Who is with us?  Stand up and be counted with us, and demanding, Stand against that wall – yes, the one pocked by bullets from the firing squad – so that we can count you off.

[9] You’re not at all welcome.  SOD OFF.  MIND YOUR OWN BLOODY BUSINESS.  HOW DARE YOU.  And, I may add, GET KNOTTED.

Tags: , , ,

29 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
serriadh From: serriadh Date: October 3rd, 2006 04:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Where did you find such crap?
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 05:31 pm (UTC) (Link)

Floating about the f'list.

I suppose they mean well, but....
dolorous_ett From: dolorous_ett Date: October 3rd, 2006 04:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well I never. A political post by you that I agree with!

I don't know who these people posting that meme are (though another member of my f-list has complained) - but they should keep their nose out.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 05:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Indeed.

Counter-productive, I should think. It's managed to get right the noses of several of us, I know.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 05:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Erratum

Shd read, 'right UP the noses'.
tree_and_leaf From: tree_and_leaf Date: October 3rd, 2006 04:46 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well skewered, sir.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 05:33 pm (UTC) (Link)

Pig-stickin', what.

Thank you.
ridicu_liz From: ridicu_liz Date: October 3rd, 2006 04:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Okay, so you've never heard of me, but I just wanted to say Huzzah!
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC) (Link)

Thank you.

Delighted to make your acquaintance.
tree_and_leaf From: tree_and_leaf Date: October 3rd, 2006 04:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
I suspect the 'no miracles' line is a reference to the sort of chain letters you get which promise wonders if you don't break the chain, and horrors if you do, but you're right, it has an odd ring to it.

Especially as not even the Inquisition would have presumed to offer miracles on demand. Actually, doing so was probably a good way to end up in front of the Inquisition, but that's another story entirely...
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 05:34 pm (UTC) (Link)

No one expects...

... well, yes.
nineveh_uk From: nineveh_uk Date: October 6th, 2006 08:47 am (UTC) (Link)

No miracles

Honestly, how can you expect people to give into to emotional/social blackmail if you don't provide miracles (or at least, as one I remember from my youth, knickers) in recompense?
clanwilliam From: clanwilliam Date: October 3rd, 2006 06:06 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, that's you straight to the Gulag, isn't it?

Or possibly Larkhill, which would at least be convenient for you...
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 06:10 pm (UTC) (Link)

Sod that for a Larkhill.

A mad world, my masters.
sgt_majorette From: sgt_majorette Date: October 3rd, 2006 06:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
This is a new one! Are you the first on your block to get it?

I can't tell you how pleased and proud I was when I finally got the Nigerian Bank Scam email. And just today, I got another spoof purporting to be from eBay saying that I will be suspended if I don't verify my bank information, not to mention the chain emails I get from my mother, to whom I have explained countless times over the last half-century why I have made it my mission in life to break all chains, snail-mail or e-.

Send this message to twenty friends and you will see what happens. Don't break the chain, because Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar and Bob Hope all broke the chain, and THEY DIED.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 07:13 pm (UTC) (Link)

Actually, I suspect I'm rather late to the Ball on this.

Which is quite acceptable.

I don't support capital punishment for spammers. It's too lenient. Public floggings, hanging at Tyburn, the attainder of their property, and sowing their fields with salt, mind you, might suffice.
shezan From: shezan Date: October 3rd, 2006 11:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
Don't break the chain, because Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar and Bob Hope all broke the chain, and THEY DIED


And so nearly did my keyboard here.
lucubratrix From: lucubratrix Date: October 3rd, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think the reason this gets forwarded is that it is in fact an excellent quote that the spam is piggybacking onto, with a very valid point.

And I am not at all fussed by the "gay" and not "gay and lesbian" nature. First of all, the acronym gets crazy if you throw in everyone, and secondly, I think "gay" is a word that covers both men and women. And besides, I really do think it's much much harder to be in a m/m relationship than a f/f one, at least in present American cultural situation. No matter how conservative one is, two women being casually affectionate with each other isn't necessarily viewed as a relationship, and if the relationship is correctly interpreted, it's more likely to cause a response of "Woo, that's hot, threesome!" than violence.

When the wife and I go the wedding of friends, for example, even when the people getting married are conservative Jews or very devout Catholics or what have you, we can (and do) dance together at the reception. Even if our friend's relations are not as gay-friendly as our friends are, the people who are opposed to femmeslash just totally overlook the two of us, making statements like, "Oh, it's such a pity that no young men these days like to ballroom dance" or what have you. Indeed, none of the people we've ever been seated with had any idea that we might be a couple, until it came up in conversation (i.e. we're wearing rings, or they exclaim that it's so convenient that we just happened to move to graduate school across the country together), because girls dancing together or holding hands is just not necessarily viewed as anything nonplatonic.

If we were two men, we would NOT be able to do anything of the sort without raising a lot of hackles and causing a scandal and possibly eliciting threats of violence.

But the tone of the spamthing is really blatantly obnoxious, I agree with you there.
(Deleted comment)
lucubratrix From: lucubratrix Date: October 3rd, 2006 09:27 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Well...

Err, I would say that there's a big faction of immediately recognizable lesbians here in the US, too. Less tweed, more of what is colloquially referred to as "mullet" here (hairstyle, not fish)... or alternatively, the "alternative" pierced and punky look.

I think the Mrs. and I are just particularly stealth on account of both being fairly feminine in our dress and appearance. In fact, this sometimes makes especially older members of the lesbian community refuse to believe that we are a couple and instead insisting that surely we must just have the same last name because we are sisters. I blame a whole series of femme jokes, most memorably "What do you call it when two femmes get together?" (Answer: shopping!).

I hear you on the LGBTWTFBBQ-ishness. We have a campus queer center, whose acronym now includes, in complete earnestness, "differently-oriented" as well as "two-spirit" and "intersex" and "allied" and "questioning" as well as "queer", making it so long that I can't remember all of it. The Mrs and I keep wanting to submit to the head of the center all kinds of other ridiculous additions like "Generally Straight But Would Totally Make An Exception For Angelina Jolie", but rein ourselves in with the understanding that the organizer is dour and humorless and probably would take us seriously.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 3rd, 2006 07:38 pm (UTC) (Link)

Well...

I agree that it's not necessary to use 'LGBTWTFBBQ' all the damned time, it sounds like a sandwich. And I agree also that there was at some point a kernel of well-meant intention in the damned thing. But it IS a question of tone, and on that we agree. Hectoring accomplishes less than nothing. I mean, if it gets on MY wick, imagine how it annoys the very people it ostensibly hopes to enlighten and to persuade.

I'd say more, but I'm trying finally to complete that essay on settlement patterns that I've owed to your question for yonks.

By the way, in the UK, Lesbians are, traditionally, much more recognisable than you suggest they are in the US. It's the mannish tweeds, I think. (/ Sayers-y jest)
shezan From: shezan Date: October 3rd, 2006 11:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
*iz ded*

*needs "Tesco Torquemadas" icon*

I saw this meme and it mildly annoyed me. I left a couple of miffed comments here and there and forgot about it. Boy, the thing HAS LEGS! That's a Major Prime Extraordinary Rant here, First Class! Bravo!
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 4th, 2006 06:43 am (UTC) (Link)

Thank you.

It was that or the parrot sketch, so....
emmagrant01 From: emmagrant01 Date: October 3rd, 2006 11:32 pm (UTC) (Link)
You officially win at Teh Intrwebz, you know that? ;-)
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 4th, 2006 06:42 am (UTC) (Link)

Why, thank you, dear lady.

Praise from the author of LMH and StG is praise indeed.
darkthirty From: darkthirty Date: October 4th, 2006 04:14 am (UTC) (Link)
I've already crowed about this on another journal that pointed out how silly it is. Good to see much sense about it from certain quarters.
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 4th, 2006 06:44 am (UTC) (Link)

I can't answer for sense...

But, yes. Thank you.
themolesmother From: themolesmother Date: October 4th, 2006 11:25 am (UTC) (Link)
I missed this, thank God.

Love your riposte, though!

Tesco Torquemadas *wanders off, chuckling*

MM
wemyss From: wemyss Date: October 4th, 2006 02:50 pm (UTC) (Link)

Thanks, love.

I'll have Cardinal Fang bring out the comfy chair, shall I?
vaysh From: vaysh Date: July 31st, 2011 02:15 pm (UTC) (Link)
Coming from you link at Tiger's post.

I hadn't seen your dissection of that odd, to say the least, "meme", but was rubbed the wrong way by its presumptioness, too. God, to think that this has been around since 2006.
29 comments or Leave a comment