Skip to main content

View Diary: How Same-Sex Marriage Would Have Resolved a $22,222.22 Moral Dilemma (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't understand why you're putting all your (4+ / 0-)

    interpretive eggs in that first basket and none in the second:

    The comment made above by FriendlyNeighbor is a pretty good characterization of my essay.
    The story may be true on exposition - i.e. how and why the money got divided in the first place - and rhetorical in its ending - i.e. the moral choice was so obviously clear that the last two paragraphs, as FriendlyNeighbor argued and the diarist agreed, are purely rhetorical.  This is a diary about the problems that same-sex couples face when it comes to legal recognition.  It's possible that the diarist wrote a few hundred words on the issue only to add a ridiculous final paragraph that negates the entire point of it, but somehow I think my reading of the story as intentionally ironical is a bit more coherent?

    Like I said above, irony doesn't always translate well on the internet.  Lord knows I've tried to defend more opaque diaries than this over the years, because I think good irony deserves its place even when the readership misses it.  Heck, I wrote a pretty contentious diary on the subject years ago, when people were canceling their New Yorker subscriptions because of the brilliant Obamas-as-terrorists cartoon, which I still think was one of their boldest and funniest covers.

    Or I could be wrong about this diary, and misreading it entirely.  I just don't see enough evidence to convince me of that yet, and the diarist's few interactions here (note the recs, too) only convince me further that I'm on the right track.  If not, I'll happily pull my support.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:42:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, lostboyjim, cai, kyril

      given the diarist's latest comment, it would appear that your interpretation of the diary is correct, despite the statement (s)he previously provided, when specifically asked (and for the very purpose of determining whether (s)he was serious about stealing money from a lesbian widow), that it was "true." Upon further review, that statement appears to have been a convenient and inflammatory half-truth of its own.

      It's still an execrable diary. I hope you're able to see (it would appear that the diarist isn't) that this is a notably awful subject for an "ironic" joke. Yes, every doofus and his uncle thinks they're Jonathan Swift, but I'd invite you to consider the basic differences between (1) eating Irish babies and (2) using homophobic American legal institutions to brutalize GLBTs.

      My HR stays.

      •  We'll just have to disagree. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madhaus, mrkvica, Purple Priestess

        And I think you're underestimating the extent to which Swift was considered offensive in his own day.  300 years' distance from the argument will do that.

        But on that note, I'm going to bow out of the comments here.  I've said my piece - plus I have a taste for bitter irony, so I might be more well-disposed toward it than others - and I don't want to prolong arguments with users I respect otherwise, so...  

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:14:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay. (4+ / 0-)
          And I think you're underestimating the extent to which Swift was considered offensive in his own day.
          I don't think I am, largely because the reasons Swift's essay was allegedly offensive bear little to no resemblance to the reasons this one is.

          My point is simply that eating babies is self-evidently absurd; Swift's essay is very obviously facetious, and no one could seriously have thought otherwise. (There's a famous U.S. Supreme Court decision based on much the same concept.)

          The original post here has no such defense. There absolutely are people in this country, indeed millions of them (such as Lisa Miller and her accomplices), who would be all too happy to do much worse than deprive a grieving GLBT survivor of a bequest from their deceased partner. This makes the nauseating position claimed by the OP narrator all too plausible and not at all clearly "ironic" or satirical at all. Which led to commenters on this thread taking it at face value—both attacking it and (thanks a lot, diarist) defending it from criticism. (How many of Swift's contemporaries defended "A Modest Proposal" by arguing that infantiphagia was "a moral issue for Swift, but not the point of the" essay?)

          Then, pressed on the very point of the accuracy of the narrative, the diarist here declared that "the story is true" while gesturing vaguely at a commenter who had suggested that it may be partially "ironic." This was, predictably, very unhelpful.

          I just don't think explosive political issues like this one deserve "ironic" yuk-yuk joking, backed up by ambiguous possibly-winking references to the "tru[th]" of an offensive story. Such behavior seems to me seriously disrespectful to the millions of people who are on the business end of tactics that are not at all different from the ones the diarist, apparently (though entirely ambiguously) facetiously, admitted to conducting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site