Hm.
Well, no doubt, because it’s more soothing to be cuddled and flattered than it is to be disputed and asked for reasons, but the fact remains that we can’t have good policies or ideas or institutions if we refuse to think carefully about what they are.
Like, what does Bartram mean about being LGBTQ+? Does it mean being all those things? Some of which are incompatible with each other?
And if we don’t know the answer to that question, how can we know what it is that’s being loved and affirmed? You don’t want to go around loving and affirming pure evil, so you really do have to know what you mean before you say it, instead of just singing a few words as if they’re poetry and leaving it at that.
And by praising Jolyon Maugham’s presumptuous question, Bartlam is withholding love an affirmation from a fellow member of the alphabet community, so how does that work? Love and affirmation for me but not for thee?
It’s all just “shut up and don’t ask questions,” and it’s not a good trend.
Comments
5 responses to “Don’t wanna debate”
Do the hearts of different colors make the tweet more valid?
So can we expect Ciara to attend court and tell the judge “Sometimes we don’t want to argue a case, we all just want to be loved and affirmed”.
In all seriousness, I think that this is one of the things that people find so appealing about the LGBTQRSTUVQXYZ+ movement. One doesn’t have to debate, to think, to analyze; you just need to spout out some bullshit about yourself, and people will reply: “Yeah! You’re so brave and valid! Hugs!!!!!”
All tweets are valid, even if they identify as Facebook posts.
Sackbut for the double burn!