Hosting a destination wedding. This should be constitutional-amendment rare—so, like, two-thirds to bring a vote.....
Is the humor in agreeing with the notion that other people are making bad decision in this area or is it in thinking that friends who want tight control over their friends' decisions are horrible? Or is it funny because you can't really tell? Alternative position: It's not funny.
I do think the hostility toward destination weddings is real, but the intrusion into decisions whether to bear a child must be intended to reflect badly on the proposal to subject it to a filibuster. I note that the filibuster is set up to make it harder to choose to go through with a pregnancy. There's an implication of forced abortion! The proposal is not to subject a decision to get an abortion to the filibuster.
I know, I'm ruining all the humor. I can do that all on my own.
Even though there's no reference to women in that humor piece, it's clearly about the way women feel about other women and how much they desire to control them and how their go-to technique is to weaponize their need to be part of a group.
Posts
28 comments:
Yet ironically the filibuster exists to protect minority rights from being trampled by a raging majority. If you can’t convince 2/3 of the United States Senate then maybe your scheme should be rethunk.
The world is a nightmare and the liberals have made it that way. Liberals shouldn't have children.
I saw Samantha Power talk about her book in Austin. After I called her a liar to her face, she later took a question from a stunning beautiful redhead from UT. She had apparently read Power's book and was depressed about the state of the world. Climate change, doncha know.
Question was why should this beautiful woman bring a child into this doomed world.
Power danced around and said it was okay to have children.
These fucking liberals have scared people to death. Evil fucks.
Extra lameness points for getting the size of the required supermajority wrong.
"it's clearly about the way women feel about other women and how much they desire to control them and how their go-to technique is to weaponize their need to be part of a group."
Now generalize to MSM propaganda, Dem campaigns, Covid panic, climate alarmism.
Like so many other nanny state tendencies, these faux proposals would put people in charge of making decisions who then don't have to bear the consequences. If you don't want to attend a destination wedding, don't go. The bride and groom are taking a chance of having lower attendance in exchange for having the setting they prefer for their wedding. Let them suffer the consequences of your absence! (Maybe they prefer the setting to your presence anyway.)
That piece is simply obnoxious, with the exception, perhaps, of the destination wedding item. That truly is a decision in which someone leverages a temporary position of due deference to impose substantial costs in both time (especially extremely limited vacation time) and money on other people, and then expects to be lied to as everyone necessarily tells them that it was a unique, unparalleled, enriching experience that reflects the couple's/bride's creativity.
So reads the final punchline in a New Yorker humor piece, "The Filibuster Belongs in my Group Chat, Not the Senate."
The filibuster isn't keeping the Dems from doing anything they want.
The party in power can't even get a majority.
If the Democrats have a no-filibuster Senate and the House and White House, we will be living in gulags (not an exaggeration). They will control government for the next thousand years.
If the R's have all of that, they will fuck it up and the Democrats will end up getting it back.
Rs don't know how to fight.
As this is a 'nightmare world,' I am OK with mandatory sterilization laws for all liberals and Democrats.
It's the right thing to do for all concerned.
Revoke the 17th Amendment, have Senators appointed by their state legislatures again. Federalism works in a republic. Popular votes seem fair but end up creating the creatures we see now in office.
The problem is this isn't a humor piece.
The people that write the New Yorker or fascists.
The people that read the New Yorker should be watched. Most of them should be shipped to China.
Was that humor? Or is it hard to tell?
People of being complaining about how bad the world is and how unethical it is to bring a child into it because of how bad it is since the '70s at least. These people make me sad. I don't think they realize that every time a baby is born the world gets better... Maybe that's just how I feel.
Children used to just turn up regardless of the world.
I bet they're all in favor of eliminating the filibuster.
"I know, I'm ruining all the humor."
No you're not. A joke is always funnier after you explain it.
I would like to point her to an obvious solution to all her problems- the 10 pizzas/day diet.
As I was reading the post I was thinking "None of this is funny." Turns out that was an option.
Joe Smith: "Rs don't know how to fight."
Au contraire.
The problem is so many of them are fighting alongside and for the dems.
Romney, Ryan then and now, McCain and his entire team then, Sasse, etc.
My wife and I long ago decided that destination weddings did not require our presence.
If they are having the wedding at a place we already intend to visit that might be one thing, but so far no one has chosen such a location.
Vacation time and money are limited resources, if people want to ignore that they can reap the reward.
'The problem is so many of them are fighting alongside and for the dems.'
If you're fighting for the dems, you're not doing it right...
Every liberal should be required to get a two thirds vote of her friends before getting pregnant. Sounds good to me.
Kind of sounds like they are making a pro-filibuster argument.
I don’t get the criticism of destination weddings. We live in a mobile society where we all have family (often most or even all of our family) living somewhere else. Most of the weddings we go to already require travel. Destination wedding? That’s redundant. The only question is, would you rather the destination be Cleveland or Bermuda?
I don’t get the criticism of destination weddings. We live in a mobile society where we all have family (often most or even all of our family) living somewhere else. Most of the weddings we go to already require travel. Destination wedding? That’s redundant. The only question is, would you rather the destination be Cleveland or Bermuda?
10/12/21, 6:11 AM
Even if some family is traveling, often you still have some family and friends nearby, reducing the burden. Plus, there's the overall expense: a weekend trip to Cleveland is cheaper than flying to Bermuda.
Every joke should at least have internal logic. The distraction caused by the absence of logic is too high of a hurdle for a joke, as you have pointed out.
Post a Comment