Decide Right Now
You have 5 seconds to decide each question.
A) Whom do you support—the people who say that your taste in music is terrible, or the people who want to kill those who think your taste in music is terrible? Five seconds. You can time yourself.
B) Whom do you support—the people who say your favorite meal is horrible, or the people who want to kill those who say your favorite meal is horrible? Five seconds. Again, time yourself.
C) Whom do you support—the people who say your favorite author can’t write an escape from a wet paper bag, or those people who want to kill anyone who makes fun of your favorite author? Five seconds.
D) Whom do you support—the people who make fun of your religion, or the people who want to kill those who make fun of your religion? Five seconds.
Question D is not a trick question. It’s just the one that trips up the most people.
And seriously, no comments about who/whom.
boo or boom
LOL. It took me more than five seconds to parse the questions. Shit, what happens to me now?
OOOOh, Do you have a typo in the first question? That would be why.
I did. Thanks, Anne, fixed now.
If it’s a test to see if we can find the right answer in five seconds, I really did fail it. In more than five seconds I’ve been thinking about what we owe to each other, which is to uphold the law and to denounce criminal violence. The reason it took me so long is that I was mainly thinking about the laws I personally need to be upholding. Whom do you support—the people whose vision of society and the universe you fundamentally disagree with, or the people who want to expel, imprison or otherwise harm those people. I’m so focused on what I have to do that it’s hard to concentrate on what other people have to do at the same time, But undoubtedly, I would uphold that principle as a universal standard and expectation.
Well framed.
It really is that simple. Scary that some people have difficulty with what should be a simple and obvious choice.
Is “neither” an acceptable response?
@7 lorn – I’m afraid I find it requires consistent moral and intellectual effort to support people whose views I strongly disagree with and even find potentially threatening against those who would harm them while otherwise supporting my views and interests. Especially when there is always the opportunity offered by John’s option @8. Ignore it, take no notice.
Of course, I’m impressed by all of you for whom that isn’t the case, but you know… I don’t want to make a secret of my own difficulties.
what lorn said. Five seconds was too long.
Anne Fenwick, you are not alone. I think the choices presented our cephalopod host are fairly plain, but in the context of Charlie Hebdo, it becomes much more difficult.
Personally, I don’t support Charlie Hebdo, and I find #jesuischarlie gross. Charlie Hebdo used outstandingly racist messages. That link ostensibly makes fun of the pope, but equates French papists with the what may well be the most well-known racist slur ever. (Feel free to reverse image search that to check for authenticity. You’ll stumble into a whole host of other disgusting CH racism.)
It’s also enlightening that many prominent folks standing with CH for journalistic freedom and freedom of press represent countries (including mine) that have jailed journalists without trial, imprisoned, tortured, and killed journalists. Flagrant racists won’t get my defense. But it’s a false dichotomy if ever there was one to assume that means I support murderous ideologues.
I refuse to support either, because neither deserve it. That is an easy choice for me.