hreru wrote:First, it was not my goal to make you angry.
And you didn't. Being exasperated is not the same thing as being angry. It's a fair point about you not being 100% fluent, and I will try to keep that in mind. (Actually, it's a compliment to your linguistic expertise that I find this so easy to forget.)
hreru wrote:Does the verb to show exclude verbal communication?
In common usage, yes. See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/show#Verb
. Also, consider the common piece of advice given to aspiring writers, "Show, don't tell", which explicitly contrasts "showing" something with communicating it verbally.
hreru wrote:Prevailing is stronger than common or typical, I admit, replace the first with the latter ones please.
In which case, I'm going to need citations equating "normal" to "common" or "typical". Again, my dictionaries don't do this.
hreru wrote:My dictionary doesn't say to pick on means only to bully.
Regardless, the point stands: What harm has Zelmerlöw suffered? He's had his public statements criticised. Every
public figure has their public statements criticised (and sometimes their private ones as well). Why refer to this as being "picked on" if you're not suggesting that some sort of bullying is taking place?
hreru wrote:I suppose he answered a question about what his views on gay community are, and he answered what he thought. It would have been different if he came up all of a sudden with "I want everyone to know gays are an abnormality".
Why would that have made a difference? He was under no obligation to say anything.
How comfortable do you think he'd be with the idea of countless strangers telling him that it was "abnormal" for a man to make a living by singing?
Uncomfortable, I don't know how much. It depends on how sensitive he is to these things and on whether it would be "it's abnormal but not wrong" or "it's abnormal, quit it right now".
This seems to me a distinction without a difference, something which I believe is confirmed by microaggression theory
Let me give you an example from my own life: My husband was recently hospitalised and I was there with him every day speaking to various caregivers and administrators. Before going in, I had had no strong feelings about how people acknowledged our relationship, whether they called us "partners" or "boyfriends" or "longtime companions" or what have you. In most situations, the varying implications of these terms simply doesn't matter.
But a hospital is different. Communications regarding an individual's medical treatment are governed by an act of Congress called HIPPA, which places strict limits on who can be told what. In addition, legal spouses have the authority to make medical decisions for a person unless that authority has been explicitly transferred to someone else. Partners who are not legal spouses do not have this authority unless it has been explicitly granted them by means of legal instrument such as Medical Power of Attorney. These factors figured prominently in our decision to become legally married last year. Even though I already had MPA for him, I wanted to eliminate the possibility of someone having to consult a document in order to establish my legal rights.
Because I was monitoring his daily care, it was essential to me that everyone I spoke with knew that I was his legal spouse, with full access to his medical records and full authority to make medical decisions in case he was incapacitated. This is not something you want to have to go through the trouble of clarifying when, for instance, someone is in cardiac arrest. So I made a point of introducing myself to everyone I spoke to as his "husband" and correcting them if they said "partner". I even went so far as to acknowledge that if they had issues with same-sex marriage, they could substitute the legal term "spouse" for "husband". (How's that for "tolerance"?)
A day didn't go by that I didn't have to give this explanation or correct someone's assumption or usage. In phone conversations, several people ignored my use of masculine pronouns to refer to him and substituted female ones. In the course of a fortnight, at least four different people referred to him as my father. (There is a substantial difference in our ages.) One of these was a physician who had spoken to me four times
at that point. When I corrected him saying, "You mean my husband?" he said, "Right, I keep forgetting." He never actually said the words, "That is abnormal." But what do you think the lack of effort he put into noting that fact conveyed?
The end result of this constant stream of microaggressions was that, by the time he was released, I was
touchy about what people said. It ultimately didn't--and doesn't--matter to me whether the mistakes they made were out of ignorance, carelessness, or malice. Whatever the reason, the result was the same. I was made insecure about the status of my relationship and uncertain whether, in a crisis situation, it would be recognised. Why should I be put through that? It wouldn't happen to an opposite sex couple.
That's why I say "tolerance" isn't enough. Same-sex marriage is "normal" in the core meaning of the term (i.e. "according to norms or rules"; it is, quite literally, the law of the land now). It is because homosexuality is "normal". Not everyone has to like that, but they do have to accept it--and that means altering their assumptions instead of treating the examples they come across as bizarre aberrations.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons