Modified meme

[ckd]

If you truly believe that "you are either with us or against us, and to be with us you must publicly profess your agreement" is a sentiment that is no more useful as part of an LJ meme than it is when the Bush Administration uses it, post this in your journal.

If you don't, you're a horrible evil person.

Comments

[lauriemann.livejournal.com]

????

As far as I could tell, here is the original Gay Rights Meme request, and it didn't do any of those things:

---

Gay Rights
"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines

We would like to know who really believes in gay rights on LiveJournal. There is no bribe of a miracle or anything like that. If you truly believe 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. Thanks.

[like D'oh!]

Pass it around.

---

Anyway, maybe if I'd seen a meme that demanded I do it, I might have felt differently! Since I didn't see that...

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

The inference I took from the way the meme is worded is that "if you don't repost this, you aren't for gay rights." It made me bristle, so I am sure it will annoy others as well.

[ron_newman]

If I didn't repost it, maybe I just didn't see it until now. Or maybe I never post anything to my LiveJournal, and am here only to participate in certain communities. (Both are true for me.)

[lizzielizzie.livejournal.com]

That's part of it, too. Basically, not posting should not equal not agreeing with the meme sentiment. The whole thing is just worded so badly.

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

Yes it did. Reread the last two sentences slowly and carefully.

[mistri.livejournal.com]

Most of the people who posted it didn't read it carefully enough, I think.

[mplsvala.livejournal.com]

I did as you suggested, but I can still read it differently. On one hand, it asks true believers to identify themselves by repeating the mime, while asking those on the other end (those who disagree, perhaps strongly) to remain quiet rather than turn it into another bunch of battles. This reading doesn't address those who fall in between. I would assume that they could choose a response (if any) without further advice.

[lauriemann.livejournal.com]

I did go back and review it, and came to the conclusion I didn't read it as carefully as I should have yesterday. I suppose because I do agree with the contention so strongly, it colored my judgement on how it was phrased.

[mplsvala.livejournal.com]

I appreciated the inclusion of the original in your comment. I hadn't seen it and was pleased to see it myself and have my own reaction. Looking at it was useful for me. It made me realise that I had become a "true believer" who was willing to say so. So I did. I really get the ojection to people telling you what to do. I just didn't have that reaction. I enjoyed what I've been calling the rebutal version. I agree with that too, I just don't think it applies here for me.

[docorion.livejournal.com]

How 'bout if I believe in Gay Rights but don't *want* to post it in my journal, for instance because my gun-totin' Republican-votin' parents read said journal? Or if I didn't see the meme until three months after it passed, but whoops! Too late, I must hate gay people. Or any one of the infinite other reasons I decide not to post in *my* journal that I believe in gay rights. The question of itself creates a False Dichotomy™.

So while there is no formal demand, the statement is worded such that either I still beat my wife or I no longer beat my wife, but it's not possible that I never beat my wife.