alimarko

asgardian-feminist:

iamabutchsolo:

I got into a slight argument with a few people on facebook stating that the CEO of Chick-fil-A has a “right to his opinion” when he says that he supports “traditional marriage” and gives to anti-LGBT organizations and that therefore we need to be mindful of that opinion.

Lemme break it down to you how that’s a terrible argument, not only in this case but in all cases in which someone’s oppressive opinion is defended as being “entitled” to them.

Being entitled to your opinion assumes that opinions live in a vacuum in which they are abstract ideas and remain as such for all eternity. Someone may be “entitled to their opinion” in the abstract and when there are no tangible consequences like, I don’t know, what you think the best Power Ranger is. But when that opinion is 1) fucking oppressive and ignorant - i.e. “I don’t recognize unions that are not heterosexual marriages,” and 2) leads to a political action that directly affects others - i.e. donating money to anti-queer and anti-reproductive rights organizations/lobbies - then that person surrenders their right not to have their opinion called out as being oppressive and harmful when it in fact is because your opinion no longer lives in the abstract; it is now concretized into action and so cannot be divorced from the fact that it arose from your opinion.

“Entitled to my opinion” is also something that oppressors frequently say to silence the oppressed when the latter wants to hold the former accountable for their messed-up ideals. It is a clear example of the privileging of discourse when an oppressed person, in this case gay people, assert that a straight person’s opinion of them is toxic, but a straight person can ignore that by asserting that “nothing else needs to be said because I have an opinion and I am entitled to say it and no one can criticize me because its my opinion.” Privilege is being able to say something oppressive, then silence people when they take a stand against it because you can’t deal with the consequences. Privilege is putting your own individual “rights” to say oppressive shit before the rights of the subjugated to be treated justly.

And finally it is particularly not the obligation of oppressed people to say that our oppressors are entitled to their opinions when they are constantly trying to subjugate and dehumanize us, no matter how nice or pleasantly they say it or how pleasant their intentions may be or how ignorant they are of their consequences. Oppressors get no free passes. We are entitled to be treated fairly. No one is entitled to be oppressive.

THANK YOU. This applies to abortion as well; I respect someone’s opinion to personally be pro-life (as in you, yourself would never have an abortion) but when you campaign and vote for legislature that restricts or criminalizes abortion, your “opinion” no longer exists in a vacuum. When it affects and oppresses others, it becomes more than just “your opinion.”

I’m going to create a library of text posts for people to refer to when they try to argue with me and have no idea what they’re saying. And this is definitely going on it.

(Source: daughterofmulan)