Whichever way he meant it, his comment shows a very dismissive attitude toward the massive work that was involved in accomplishing this.

It's true it shouldn't have been a fight, but it was.

And the idea that there are so many "more important" issues, is also incredibly dismissive to how important the right to marriage equality is.

By "more important" I mean that intelligent people view marriage equality as a fundamental right that we shouldn't have to fight for. Now that we don't have to fight for marriage equality, we can move on to other issues that may warrant more of a fight.

I think you and I feel the same way about equal rights in general...it can just be hard to distill and convey some opinions via an HN thread.

I'm glad we're in agreement on the issue, but I still think your wording shows an underlying dismissiveness of the work that went into this and the importance of today's decision. You're telling everyone "OK great, move on." like we shouldn't be celebrating this.

Just because you see it as dismissive doesn't make it so. You don't get to decide the intent of the statement. You can state your opinion about it and ask for clarification, but you don't get to define it for your own purposes.

I don't think you understand how reality works. You get to say whatever you want, and intend it however you want. Then the rest of us get to interpret your meaning and decide what it means for ourselves. You don't get to tell everyone else what to think of what you said. You just get to say whatever you want. You don't get to restrict how other people interpret what you say.

While you're technically correct that intent and interpretation are entirely independent, if you throw away all context of the statement and frame it in your own pedantic and literal interpretation...why are you even engaging in communication? You obviously aren't putting forth any effort to understand the speaker's intent and that seems to be at the heart of conversation and debate alike.

My point is not to throw away the speaker's intent, my point is that the speaker's intent is only one factor in how people will interpret what is said.

For example if I say "She sure is smart for a girl." I may not be intending to be a misogynistic asshole, I may be intending it as a compliment. But most people are going to read it for what it is; a comment that shows my own bigotry and means nothing outside of that.

Not when your interpretation seeks to define the other person's statement to fit your viewpoint. You can respond with:

"You seem to be saying this, and I think that's wrong. Is that what you're saying?"

versus:

"You are saying this, and you are wrong."

It's called communication. It's a two-way street.

If the speaker intends a statement as a compliment but states it badly, why is your reaction that much more important because you take it as an insult? Why do you get to redefine the intent and totally dismiss the statement altogether, which means you are also dismissing the intended compliment?

That type of reaction actually increases the misunderstanding and makes the problem worse in the long run.

So, by your logic if I say I think the sky is beautiful today you can respond with "why do you hate jelly beans?" and I have to respect that?