Call it the “I’m RUBBER, YOU’RE GLUE!” rebuttal

False equivalency as a rhetorical tactic of the religious right is nothing new, but it seems to be more prevalent lately. I read a story on my new pick for the most comically stupid “news” site on the Internet,, in which the anonymous author — supposedly a high-school kid in Canada but almost certainly one or more regular contributors to the site — complains that people calling him a bully for maligning homosexuality and same-sex marriage are actually the real bullies. Others have taken up the cry that calling bigoted homophobes “bigoted homophobes” (for lack of a clearer, more specific term) is itself bigotry and marks an unwillingness on the part of liberals to properly understand where they’re coming from.

Look, you idiots. You stand on sidewalks by the hundreds if not thousands across America, waving signs declaring just what you think of gays and gay marriage and where those folks will be spending eternity if they fail to repent. You yammer incessantly about sinners and the evils of faggotry and an “anything goes” culture on Web sites, and you rail on in sheer stunning ignorance of both history and the Bible itself about what “traditional marriage” has “always been.” You’re oppressive, deluded meddlers, but one thing you are not is complicated. The rest of us “get” you very well.

Which underscores yet another example of false equivalency: According to SSM opponents and everyone who can’t shut the fuck about “sin” for thirty damn minutes, a refusal to approve of something is tantamount to a failure to grasp its purported complexities.

Now take this example of nonsensical philosophical cartwheeling one step further into the void, and you find people who are the close cousins of every tenaciously ignorant “birther” who has ever expelled a stinking breath: To wit (or not), people who say that Roe vs. Wade is not settled law, because the entire case was founded on lies. No, really; there are anonymous yutzes posing heroically as nonpareil legal scholars who assert that, while the reality of Roe vs. Wade has somehow eluded the Supreme Court and whole armies of case-law experts over the past 40-plus years, they know the real deal, and if only the world would get a clue, etc.

It would be charming, in its own shit-streaked way, if such people were not allowed to vote. But they are, and that takes a lot of the giggle out of the stick.

2 thoughts on “Call it the “I’m RUBBER, YOU’RE GLUE!” rebuttal”

  1. Well, Kevin E. Beck, this is Kevin M. Beck with a report on our most recent stalker. (Don’t ask me how he managed to get our middle initials confused after triumphantly fixating on my real name for at least a day.)

    If you follow that trackback above, you’ll find more hilarious irony (or is it ironic hilarity?) from Ed Naile, a squint-eyed woodchuck from New Hampshire’s inbreeding country. Here we have a clearly unemployed gentleman spending a great deal of time and mental energy talking to himself on that wreck of a blog about how we’re allegedly unemployed. He also maligns our running, characterizing it as a high-school-glory-days thing in spite of the money and career advancement it has earned us — I guess his own yen for digging up chunks of rock from muddy riverbanks represents not merely a hobby, but a distinguished, and surely lucrative, career. And like every right-wing lost cognitive cause out there, he scoffs at our high educational attainment as if our intelligence is a detriment, kind of like a guy with microphallus making fun of all of those cloddish, well-hung porn stars because, you know, he’s happy to just be a regular dude and isn’t jealous at all.

    Even his fellow illiterate paranoiacs won’t join him in his relentlessly inane quest to take us down a peg. And best of all, someone named “Frito Pendejo” trolled the hell out of him in a comment to his most recent stalker-post, and he actually couldn’t pick up on Mr. Pendejo’s rank and titillating insincerity.

    This guy has spent a decade or more unsuccessfully trying to get liberals busted for voter fraud — yet he’s still counted as an “expert” in this area by (who else?) his fellow right-wingnuts. Well, I suppose that he is, in the same way a guy who has blown $25 million in Vegas counts as a gambling expert.

    I suspect he’ll get bored with us soon enough and move along in his sad and torpid way to his next target, who, I’m sure, will be just as cowed by his rhetorical barbs as we are.

Comments are closed.