Anonymous #1 4w

What so therefore everything else they say is wrong by default?? Obviously I am against bombing civilians, that’s not the point. Can you not see how, *in isolation*, you would not expect a comment saying “I don’t support governments that kill people for being gay” to be downvoted on the LGBT Yik Yak?

-15

Anonymous OP 4w

they weren’t saying it in isolation so it shouldn’t be interpreted in isolation

28

Anonymous OP 4w

yes you are crazy for taking it out of context

27

Anonymous #1 4w

That really hurts to hear but I guess it’s important to know. So talk me through this I assumed that pink’s willingness to bomb civilians was not in virtue of their lack of support for homophobic governments but rather in virtue of them just being to type to be okay with bombing civilians. Basically I saw two claims being asserted: 1) we should not support governments that kill people for being gay 2) therefore we should bomb their civilians. (part one of two)

-12

Anonymous OP 4w

Obviously all of us take issue with the second (for good reason), but where we seem to differ is on the first. Of course most people were probably downvoting the comment to express their dislike of the second premise, but the humor (as far as I see) comes from the fact that the second premise really isn’t present in the comment itself, leading people to downvote an otherwise incredibly uncontroversial and hard to object to take. (I was wrong, there is a third part)

-11

Anonymous OP 4w

Even in context it does seem strange to me to downvote the comment in question, rather than just the other comments they made that expressed the second premise (the one which as I see it is objectionable). That’s all.

-9

Anonymous OP 4w

either you didn’t see the post it was commented on or you’re being stupid.

20

Anonymous OP 4w

Because it’s weird for you to be conceding anything to someone who advocated for genocide?

13

Anonymous #5 4w

I guess I don’t see how it’s conceding something. Like surely we all believe in the first premise anyway, so in what way is it a concession to voice our agreement? (genuine question)

-5

Anonymous #3 4w

Do you support our government?

-6

Anonymous #6 4w

wdym?

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

no but that doesn’t mean foreign countries should bomb us 🥴

10

Anonymous #3 4w

Well yeah, obviously! I’m not arguing that at all?!?!

-3

Anonymous OP 4w

It’s the bombing part that I take issue with, though, not the not supporting our government part

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

well yeah we all agree with the first premise, but there’s no reason to state that unless it’s to make another point. It’s the same reason we downvote people who say “Trans women still have a Y chromosome!”. It has minimal use other than to make a twisted argument, and out of context we assume it’s bigotry.

4

Anonymous #7 4w

That’s really enlightening actually. While I still don’t think it’s “conceding” anything to voice agreement with the first, I can see how people may respond negatively, even out of context. I guess to me the first premise is not necessarily a given in all circles, as I unfortunately think there are many Americans who do support homophobic governments (I mean, there are Americans who are against gay marriage). Still, I can see the similarities.

-2

Anonymous #7 4w

Wait, but your comment was downvoted too, so I guess that’s not the reasoning other people had??

-2

Anonymous OP 4w

I guess not? For others it’s probably bad moreso because of the context they said it in, I’m just giving a reason why it’s still a weird thing to say even out of context.

4