Word of advice
Saying it and saying you didn’t say it.
Bad Ash. Dishonest Ash. Ash is pretending to think Berrelli’s tweet contained quotation marks, as in: Ash, you said “lesbians were” etc. But there are no quotation marks. Berrelli summarized what Ash said, and she summarized it accurately. Saying “it’d be fair to ask if racism plays a part” is more than close enough to “equivalent to racists.” Accurate summarizing is not “making shit up.”
Bad bad bad Ash.
So Trumpian.
“It’d be fair to ask whether Islamophobia plays a part in announcing every 5mins that they’d never sleep with a devout Muslim.”
“It’d be fair to ask whether ageism plays a part in announcing every 5mins that they’d never sleep with an underage person.”
“It’d be fair to ask whether speciesism plays a part in announcing every 5mins that they’d never sleep with an avocado.”
If within five minutes you said you would never sleep with A. Sarkar, it would be fair to ask if that’s sarcasm.
“I didn’t explicitly say lesbians are equivalent to racists, I merely brought up racism to explain my point by way of an analogy.” Dear god, are these people really so childish that they think adults can’t see through such simple bullshitting? (Yes)
“I’m not touching you!!”
Re #3
I see what you did there. Good one.
This is such a common dishonest argumentation technique that I wonder if it has a name.
Nullius would know.
But there’s also the other, underlying dishonest argumentation: the false disclaimer.
Before totally pressuring people into sex with people, for exactly one reason.
It’s always there. It’s there because they know perfectly well that what they’re doing is pressuring people (mostly lesbians) to have sex with men they don’t want to have sex with. They have to apply this pressure, otherwise the ideology breaks. And a few thousand or million traumatised lesbians are a small price to pay, in their eyes.
They know how wrong this is (hence the bullshit disclaimer) but they’re doing it anyway, and they’ll do it again.
Until it just doesn’t work on anyone any more. That day could be approaching.
The article has stirred up so much panicky hatred from gender identity extremists that people are certainly noticing. The damage control is in overdrive, as we’ve seen, from just one article, albeit one from the BBC. People are starting to realise what trans activists are actually, really, truly saying. And a lot don’t like it one little bit.
Purely anecdotally, the Nolan podcast seems to have been received differently: TAs are mostly just denouncing the whole thing as ‘smears’ or a ‘hit piece’ without engaging the arguments or evidence at all. I’m fairly sure that’s because they haven’t listened to it. Either way, it doesn’t seem to have generated the same sort of anger that this article did.
But both are raising awareness, both are casting light. I think it will take a few (perhaps a lot, perhaps an awful lot) more impacts like this before the tide really begins to turn, but we’re getting there.
James Garnett #7
I have previously described it as a “meta-strawman”, i.e. attacking strawmen by falsely accusing others of attacking strawmen. The classical example being accusing atheists of arguing against an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.