More responses to Billy Bragg’s attempt to tell women what to do:
And from the other direction…
Slogan, slogan, slogan. We give arguments, they reply with slogans. It gets tiresome.
Because the arguments are made in bad faith. Take this one. "A man is stronger than a woman. End of. I win." No one is arguing with that fact. But it does not mean that it is impossible to come up with a means to ensure athletes compete on a level playing field
— Billy Bragg (@billybragg) March 12, 2020
But we already have that. We already have a means to ensure that athletes compete on a level playing field. Men compete against men and women compete against women. That’s it, that’s the means.
Deeply pissed off more than heartbroken in my case, but it comes to the same thing.
Comments
5 responses to “Name any group you’d speak to as you do women”
It is pitiful – Bragg’s windings, slitherings & evasions. And the disgraceful and craven assertion that any argument that he can’t, or, rather, won’t, take on is made in ‘bad faith’ and therefore invalid. ‘I just don’t believe it to be the slam dunk you think it is.’ Were this not a twitter argument but a bout in a ring, he’d be on the canvas. He has nothing.
Lots of good points, but that fight is a bad example. It was quite competitive for a round and half, then the man got the woman with some good strikes and knocked her out. You see this all the time in male vs. male and female vs. female fights. The woman was 33-0-1 and the man was 13-1, so an experience difference, but not necessarily one that matters much. If most of the man’s 13 wins were against top fighters, then he’d be considered a top fighter himself, not inexperienced. Anyway, he didn’t just immediately destroy her as I expected.
The weightlifting stats are good, valid examples. It’s unfortunate they’re illustrated with a sasquatch with his skin peeled off and a fashion model ironically showing off her lack of muscles with her skin peeled off. Weightlifters don’t look like that.
The discussion itself is very Illuminating. As Ophelia points out, one side has arguments and the other slogans. Bragg sometimes seems to have shifted a little bit toward being reasonable, but then he uses the terrible logic that he can magically ignore solid arguments because they’re allegedly offered in “bad faith”.
Those arguments HAVE to be in bad faith, otherwise he’d be mistaken or wrong. And how llikely is that, eh?
Bragg seems very new to this topic.
Not so new, I suspect, since the claim of ‘bad faith’ seems to be a predictable tactic espoused by such as he. A sort of ‘get out of the logical mess I’ve got myself into’ card. He’s picked up on that one all right. But despite his surname, he seeks to appear to be so well-meaning, even naive… I’m afraid I put it down to simple stupidity, and the preening self-satisfaction that results from watching yourself support a wonderful cause such as that of ‘human rights’, which everyone knows is GOOD THING..