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

[niqui.livejournal.com]

this is the second reaction to this meme i've seen, without actually seeing the meme at all. i must be hanging out with the wrong crowd. what's the commotion about?

[ckd]

Basically, there's this meme that says that if you support gay rights, you should post the meme in your LJ.

It includes the following: "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."

At best, it's egregiously sloppy wording and bad logic. At worst, it's a demand that you parrot a particular post rather than, y'know, thinking for yourself and posting the results.

I'm both amused and pleased that I've seen more variants/objections/discussion posts than I have copies of the original.

Actually, the original is in lauriemann's comment above

[mplsvala.livejournal.com]

I was really glad to see the original in the comments above. DD-B posted the rebuttal version and I was tracking it back. As it happens, I have become a true believer and don't mind saying so, if prompted. I seem to hold a minority opinion that only two groups are actually addressed, true believers and disbelievers. Obviously many people felt slighted by their reading. So, I would have to agree that it is badly worded. And I find the rebuttal version ookable. I thought it was funny even without knowing the particular context.