User:Woozle/book ideas/101 Things

This is sort of a variation on the Reality Agenda idea:

101 Things Liberals Can't Believe You Still Don't Understand

In general, it would use examples of right-wing idiocy as a starting point for demolishing RW political positions.

• Example: The "gay island, lesbian island, straight island" argument (Tumblr, Gay Star News) makes the following mistakes:
  • Gay people can't reproduce.
    • 1. Yes, gay people can reproduce. It just doesn't happen accidentally.
  • People not reproducing is a threat to society.
    • 2. The population is already too big, so anything we can do to reduce reproduction is a good thing.
    • 3. There is no shortage of breeders. Even if humans were threatened with extinction, and even if gay people actually couldn't reproduce, gay people are and will always be a minority. (But note that both of these "if"s are still wrong.)
    • 4. Being gay is not a choice. It is innate. Gay people can choose to pretend to be straight, but you can't just stop being gay -- no matter how many bad reasons you might have for wanting someone to do so.
  • Being gay is not natural.
    • Actually, yes: 5. homosexuality is found in nature. Being gay is natural.
    • 6. You can't reject something just because it is "unnatural". If you're rejecting "unnatural" things, then you need to reject houses, clothing, cars... (If you really want to complain about something "unnatural" that's destroying society, why not start with structured investment vehicles, mortgage-backed securities, gerrymandering, or Fox News?)

Other possible starting points:

• How the "pro-life" movement works against its claimed goals (see cwre:Misnomers/right to life).
• Republicans are actually terrible at managing other people's money. Democrats may occasionally be corrupt or screw things up, but they generally do much better at promoting general prosperity -- despite what Republicans would have you believe. Republicans have expanded the debt and deficit far more than Democrats ever have.
• Republicans don't actually believe in "small government"; that's only an argument they use when they're trying to kill a program they don't like (generally because it has some negative impact on the profits of their largest donors). They frequently make government "bigger" when it suits them.

I'm sure there are numerous others.