Obsolete Punch Line, or, the Extraordinarily Mundane
Bells said:
Wellwisher has yet to back up his claims.
Well, to a certain degree, he
has backed them. And that support is insufficient for his point, as was predicted.
For some folks, it's kind of embarrassing to find that their controversial moral assertion is based on useless, obsolete data. Having one's gullibility exposed like that never really does much good for one's self-esteem.
But that leaves another silly notion to be examined.
Really? We're going to compare
who a person loves to
smoking a cigarette?
From the outset, people have been focusing on what they knew from the outset was Wellwisher's bad data and what that sort of ignorance brings to the discourse.
But let's stop and think about the other part.
Imagine yourself in high school.
Someone of the same sex says, "I think I'm in love with you."
Someone of any sex says, "Hey, want a smoke?"
In what Universe are these two considerations remotely similar?
One of the problems we encounter by hounding Wellwisher's brand of ignorance from the conversation is that we never do get to hear the punch lines.
That is:
So our neighbor argued what reads like bigoted superstition. And when challenged to support that argument, he provided the expected numbers that were generated with questionable intentions and by lame methods, which end up lending to a dishonest, not-quite-circular moral assertion. Oh, my. How ... er ... embarrassing.
We can simply say, "And now he knows what's wrong with that particular line of argument. This is why it doesn't work."
But this comparison to
smoking?
I smoke. I'd love to not, but that's one of the burdens you accept when you start, even if you don't realize what you're signing your soul away to.
I've been in love before. Don't know what to tell you about that.
But I can sincerely say that the two are very, very different. This is my opinion, derived from my perspective. Anyone is welcome to argue, if they like. It's not writ in stone, but therein lies the ultimate question:
How is smoking like falling in love?
I mean, for starters, and perhaps I'm simply too proud of my humanity, but falling in love usually involves another person. We can make whatever jokes we want about relationships, and some of the heterosexual-misogynist variety would certainly apply—you know, like, the old ball and chain that always costs you money, gives diminishing returns, and will hound you into the grave, just like a wife.
But at some point, the wife becomes an inanimate object in those punch lines. Well, according to the comparison. Either that, or the cigarette becomes a person. Anthropomorphizing cigarettes can sometimes be useful. But, still, this is a different intersection between life and art.
"
The current statistics say that cigarettes will shorter your life by about 10 years. The life expectancy of gay males is shortered by 20 years. Why is PC not trying to control behavior that is doubles loss of life expectancy, if it is so concerned about those addictive cigarettes ....
.... Should we use the 20 year standard fo gay mortality as the standard for PC hands off? That means smoking should also be hands off. Or do we use the liberal dual standard?"
(#585)
Often I laugh at some of my vegetarian neighbors who are moralistic and supremacist about their diet; they might ask why, if I eat a snail, would I not eat my dog. And in those moments, whether it's a chocolate covered ant, or a cow or sheep, I wonder if they really are overlooking the obvious difference in how humans relate to dogs and locusts. But in that case, no matter how screwed up I think that argument is, they at least have the general basis of saying, "
Animal equals animal, and you tell me the difference." Others might think the lack of sensitivity toward distinction is a bit strange, but there is, at the very least, this logical connection between the worm on the hook and the golden retriever stretched out by the fireplace so you can lay on the floor and use the dog as a pillow while you read and listen to
Birth of the Cool.
Who you love equals smoking, though? Where is the common logical basis between a cigarette and a human being? Punch lines. Love as psychotic behavior; smoking as addiction. No, really. That's it. Am I wrong? Then, pray tell how and why. Diverting the question into that context still doesn't reconcile the individual human being to the inanimate object. The risk assessment considers the profits and losses of interacting with a human being to the one or an inanimate object to the other.
The relationship between lovers involves
two human beings.
The relationship between addict and drug is, well, between
one human being and an addictive drug.
This absurd dehumanization of the proposed lover is something we might even attempt to call the most offensive thing of all about Wellwisher's argument, but instead of outrage perhaps a moment of deeper consideration would serve us better. How often does this sort of device slip into our rhetoric? Certainly, it's not quite as egregious as justifying rape by declaring that men are like hand grenades, and a woman in tight jeans might be enough to pull the pin, and you can't blame the grenade for what happens after someone else pulls the pin. But its subtlety is important, too. Certes, punch lines have a certain function in the public discourse, often granted passage until it is replaced by something much more responsibly informative, like facts themselves in some cases, or a specifically-arranged array of facts—i.e., a complex but supportably informed argument.
Does the dehumanization carry any influential credibility? That is, who on any side of an issue will give an argument any weight? Are there traditionalists who genuinely nod because the point makes sense to them? Do the people who are outraged by an ignorant proposition actually know how much influence the device really carries? Of course not. It's impossible to know; the best estimate we have is how often we hear it in the discourse. You know, like that bit about Adam and Steve. It still persists in the gay fray, and it's certainly easier than actually thinking the point through in relation to Judeo-Christian theology applied in the political discourse.
One would think that ....
Well, never mind what one would think. In the end, we must remember that there are
two issues afoot in people's distress about our neighbor's sentiments.
The first is, indeed, a matter of fact mixed with a fallaciously detached historical mosaic.
The second is dehumanization; if one's argument has to do with comparing people to, say, a cigarette, or a tampon, or some livestock about to be introduced invasively to a human sex organ, and so on
ad nauseam, shouldn't that be an obvious omen right there? Say whatever about the nature of our indignation, but if your argument
requires that other human beings be considered as mere objects of conveniently denigrating metaphor, perhaps you ought to consider whether or not you're presenting a genuine point.
And one can say whatever about playing rhetorical chess and elevating their own rhetoric to some grandmaster's overview, but, no, if we're talking about, "this person is a cigarette", you've just turned a person into a cigarette, with all the implications therein.
And the thing is that the difference
is not extraordinary. Part of the reason people become indignant about such aspects of these debates is that they should not have to explain certain things.
When you combine the appearance of ignorance with what appears willful dehumanization in order to make a point that isn't even valid in its own context, the result is that people become wary. Instinctively, they expect something better than an obviously obsolete punch line couched in a dehumanizing addiction metaphor.
This is not an extraordinary expectation.
To the other, this is also an enlightening glimpse inside the homophobic outlook. Do these uninformed punch lines really count as rhetoric in these circles? If so, doesn't that simply remind what homosexuals are up against in their journey to be merely human?
Nor should anyone wonder, should these cardboard cut-out myths bear any influence in traditionalist circles, why those folks are viewed as uninformed bigots.