Pro traditional marriage group, Singaporeans Defending Marriage and Family, recently posted this call to action against the upcoming Pink Dot.
In it, they seemed to be calling for a boycott of every company that is supporting Pink Dot.
This pro-family brigade was in turn brigaded by people who were not that happy with the concept of boycotting.
Perhaps this was the crux of the issue: How do you reconcile the idea that you are boycotting some pro-gay products while still using other pro-gay products?
This is how.
First, one of the members proclaimed their decision to boycott one of the products.
Which led to another response offering another pro-gay platform that he could potentially boycott.
The original share-tea boycotter gave this reason.
Now, the more astute among all of you might have seen the absurdity of this statement. Because Facebook needs users to function, and make money, and by being one of the users, you are directly contributing to their fortunes.
Something another commenter pointed out.
Which led to this perplexing outburst from the original boycotter, where he claimed people were trying to:
Which is blatantly false, as no one was telling Facebook to kick pro-traditional marriage people off Facebook.
But the epitome of the dissonance perhaps resided in this statement.
Because this is tantamount to saying, "It is Facebook's fault for not banning me", which is a position of passivity.
Quite unlike the position of advocacy, "Let's boycott these brands!", which they took at the beginning of their post.
This kind of makes their stance, "I believe strongly in boycotting all pro-LGBT platforms and not giving them a single penny"... Except those brands that I use, and will inconvenience me on a day-to-day basis.
Which means this is less of a boycott, and more of a slightly louder version of a Facebook status update.
Here's an article you should check out next:
Top image adapted from Ng Yishu's picture