This is the second installment of my weekly "Curved Opinion of the Week" feature.
There have been two issues on my mind this week, the first is the case of Sandra Bland which I have written about here and the second is the hunter Walter Palmer who has been in the news after killing, actually lets not say killing, lets say murdering because that is what he did, a lion named Cecil.
What I was thinking about today are the people who tell you:
This happened to me when I was commenting on an article about Walter Palmer by someone telling me that the Sandra Bland case was more important. The two are in no way, shape or form connected and therefore cannot be compared.
Are we not allowed to care about different subjects? Do we have to pick just one? If that is the case, then I am thoroughly screwed.
It seems that in the comments section these days, (I know, I know, don't read the comments sections, evil resides there) whatever the subject the article is written on, I see people try to change the subject to something entirely different, but they believe is what should be talked about. Sometimes their subject is more important, but why can we not speak about both?
Why can I not comment on an article about (for example) how to create the perfect pin curl without being told by some guy that I should be thinking about more important issues, like ISIS. For all they know, I could have spent the rest of the day reading about ISIS and wanted some light relief!
Can I not comment on an article about FGM without somebody saying "What about male circumcision? What are women doing about that?"
Do we have to write a warning on all of our comments stating "I know that the issues of x, y and z are all important, I talk about them all regularly but I want to talk about something else for a second?"
Enquiring mind want to know.
What I was thinking about today are the people who tell you:
"You shouldn't be moaning about "x", when "y" is happening in the world".
This happened to me when I was commenting on an article about Walter Palmer by someone telling me that the Sandra Bland case was more important. The two are in no way, shape or form connected and therefore cannot be compared.
Are we not allowed to care about different subjects? Do we have to pick just one? If that is the case, then I am thoroughly screwed.
It seems that in the comments section these days, (I know, I know, don't read the comments sections, evil resides there) whatever the subject the article is written on, I see people try to change the subject to something entirely different, but they believe is what should be talked about. Sometimes their subject is more important, but why can we not speak about both?
Why can I not comment on an article about (for example) how to create the perfect pin curl without being told by some guy that I should be thinking about more important issues, like ISIS. For all they know, I could have spent the rest of the day reading about ISIS and wanted some light relief!
Can I not comment on an article about FGM without somebody saying "What about male circumcision? What are women doing about that?"
Do we have to write a warning on all of our comments stating "I know that the issues of x, y and z are all important, I talk about them all regularly but I want to talk about something else for a second?"
Enquiring mind want to know.
