I’ve been retweeting (when able) people’s photos of themselves buying/eating lunch at any Chik-Fil-A rival today as a little counter-protest against “Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day;” wherein Republican/Conservative politicians have been encouraging followers to patronize said restaurant chain to show their solidarity with bigotry and anti-gay discrimination.
So far, this is my favorite, tweeted by @laputanwmachine
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
@Dustin
“The chicken is just the medium. It HAD to come down to the chicken, as ridiculous as that is.”
Actually, I think right here I rest my case since you made it for me…. btw…
“That is SO American. That you want to dismiss ALL of this is what's sad.”
Your bigotry against Americans is showing…. just saying. 🙂
LikeLike
@ Andrew Eisen
Fair enough. Thank you.
LikeLike
@ Narf
No, dude, the way liberals protest is WAY stupider than that. We're going to have a consensus-based meeting with hand signals and focus on involving the homeless in the decision-making process, and then we're not going to take clear political positions because that's just supporting “the system”.
…no, but seriously, that's a total load of crap. Most Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, are for crap at any sort of useful political action. Arguing that conservatives are somehow more rational because their delusional hatred of gay people inspires them to buy chicken sandwiches strikes me as a loser of an argument.
In fact, lots of protest groups made noise in the media and there was a “gay kissing day” protest where gay couples would walk into CFA and make out, which to me is the most awesome thing ever, but it got drowned out by the sheer number of dumbass rednecks venting their grotesquerie in the guise of defending free speech.
Oh, and to the dude with the four problems with distinguishing, let me take a whirl:
1. The difference between disagreement and hate: when you disagree with someone, you tell them so or quietly disapprove. When you hate someone, you actively get in the way of their choices so that you can cause them misery, then accuse them of conspiring to destroy you when they object.
2. Approval and Implicit Condemnation: These are different when it's not a zero-sum game. If I like the Red Sox, it's not a lock that I hate the Yankees (although I do). But when your version of “liking” traditional marriage extends to donating money to people so that they can attempt to stop other people from having a different kind of marriage, and when you say that it's “arrogant” to think there might be a valid kind of family other than a heteronormative one, you are over the line.
#3: Beliefs and people. That's true. I think that people who oppose same-sex marriage are people, and I even like/love some of them. But I also think that – to the extent that they disagree with me on this issue, which is about the right of people who love each other to form families – they are being assholes. Opposing same sex marriage is morally indefensible. If you do, you are kind of a bad person, exactly in the same way that you would be kind of a bad person if you thought there should be laws against interracial marriage, women working, or integrated schools. Not that I can't care about a person with those beliefs, but that person still kind of sucks.
4. Disagreement and bigotry: People who oppose gay marriage are bigots. That is to say, they want to use the force of law to prevent people from doing something that, although it does not harm or affect them in any way, they do not agree with. That's as intolerant a position as it is possible to have without building concentration camps. People who oppose bigotry and call the bigots out on it are disagreeing, since you will notice that, although I think CFA, its ownership, and anyone who celebrated “hate gay people with chicken day” or whatever it was called are bigots, nobody (sane) has suggested that CFA be outlawed, or that nobody should be able to voice those opinions. Go ahead and voice them, I say!
But if you do, you're an asshole. Clear?
LikeLike
It's clear that you'd rather define the opposition as unreasonable and hateful than actually think about stuff. Emotional arguments can be powerful stuff man.
LikeLike
and now we have this;
http://news.yahoo.com/chick-fil-opponents-stage-same-sex-kiss-225747622.html
LikeLike
@ Anonymous 3:01
“Rational” is very distant from how I would describe what the conservatives are doing right now. I'm more inclined to use words like “effectual” or “practical”, where I would describe the anti-Chik-Fil-A protest as “impotent” or “juvenile”.
“In fact, lots of protest groups made noise in the media and there was a “gay kissing day” protest where gay couples would walk into CFA and make out, which to me is the most awesome thing ever,”
Awesome, but completely fruitless.
LikeLike
What will supporters of gay marriage do next? Protesting Chick-Fil-A didn't work. In fact, more people showed up to support Chick-Fil-A thanks to the free publicity the restaurant got because of the owner's view on gay marriage.
LikeLike
@ Shark
Actually donate money to pro-gay-marriage organizations or support corporations that are pro-gay-marriage and stop screwing around and wasting time doing things that were doomed to failure from the start?
LikeLike
@Narf
We are doing that already. I can donate to gay rights groups AND call homophobe hate groups out on their BS at the same time. We liberals can multitask.
And, you know, Narf…my side is winning. Gay marriage will exist in every state within 20 or 30 years. This doesn't strike me as a a big “win” for the pro-oppression agenda…it just seems like a lot of assholes buying saturated fat.
@Anonymous
To oppose gay marriage is to incur my contempt. There is no room for a “reasonable” argument over the personhood and civil rights of gay people. There is no rational argument to be made on the topic. Opposing civil rights is for third world dictators and supporters of eugenics. Don't confuse anger with ignorance here; I have thought about this plenty. On this topic, there simply can be no compromise, because there is literally no valid, fact-based rational argument that can be made against the civil rights of homosexual couples, and the ones implicit in the rhetoric of “defense of marriage” and “protection of marriage” amount to “we are afraid of change.” Fuck those people. Seriously.
LikeLike
@ Anonymous
“We are doing that already.”
I won't question whether you personally are doing that.
The problem is that the protest isn't encouraging it at all… Like all slactivism, it's actually disincentivising it for people who might other-wise have. After all, if they took a picture of themselves eating chicken at KFC or whatever, they already did their good deed for the day and don't need to donate money.
“Gay marriage will exist in every state within 20 or 30 years”
How do you figure that? Watching this whole mess, the issue seems even more divisive than ever. With out a change in strategy from the LGBT community, I'd say the odds of gay-marriage ever getting passed on the federal level are nearly nill.
Change doesn't just happen if you wait for it long enough… you have to go out and make it happen.
LikeLike
You are questioning it, but I know who I give money to, so I'm good.
But actually, I'm persuaded by you. Gay rights groups need a fast food chain of their own to adopt. I suggest something involving hot dogs.
LikeLike
@ Anonymous
“You are questioning it”
It's more an issue that whether or not you personally do is moot, and whether or not I believe you is moot. So, there's no point in going down that road.
And, I recommend Oreos (and by extension, the rest of Nabisko) who got comparatively very little attention or support when they came out in support of gay-rights.
LikeLike