Proudly a demographic since 2014
Argumentum ad fake comparison:
I don’t have enough eyes to roll here.
He’s trying to jostle us into thinking men like him are comparable to Black people in majority-white societies or Jewish people in Nazi Germany. They’re not. Just being an identifiable group doesn’t make that group comparable to all other groups.
But they’re a demographic you see. As long as you’re a demographic you get to claim persecution whenever someone is skeptical of your grandiose claims about yourself.
Indeed, substitution of groups isn’t truth functionally idempotent. The idea that you can take any “[group] is|are|has|have [property]” phrase and substitute values for [group] or [property] willy-nilly while retaining the same truth value is just silly.
Here’s a simple example. Squares have more than three sides. This statement is true. Substituting pentagon, or hexagon, or even dodecahedron for square products a true statement. Triangle doesn’t.
Astonishingly, it actually does matter what words you put together and in what order.
Willoughby’s “free speech” includes claiming he’s a female. Females are not a minority per se, but neither are males, so his “free speech” also includes claiming minority status. His “free speech” also includes comparing himself to people who were horribly abused, tortured, and murdered for their ethnicity. And that’s a hat trick of lies in just two tweets. He’s lucky he’s free to be that full of shit, but oh, the oppression he suffers. Boo hoo.
As always the analogy breaks down the moment you ask for specifics. Try to think of specific examples of basic human rights (you know, the kind that are supposed to apply to everyone) that have been systematically violated in the most obvious ways in the case of blacks and Jews, and you may very well have identified the easiest task in world history. Indeed you have already thought of an example. And another one. And another one. The list is practically endless. No need for for endless chains of impossibly sloppy inferences (a implies* b, and b implies c etc… etc…), or far-fetched interpretations, or stretching of word meanings to the breaking point to get to some kind of indirect injustice or harm.
Try to think of specific examples of basic human rights that are systematically violated* in the case of TIMs, and all you have is the best left unspecified, special privilege kind of “rights”.
*If you forget everything you ever learned about logic.
** By feminists anyway.
“Do you agree that men should be excluded from women’s spaces — or do you think doing that is equivalent to apartheid or putting Jews in ghettos?”
Their answer is that yes, men should be excluded from women’s spaces and no, those aren’t applicable analogies. And now that that’s disposed of, we can get to the right issue.
“I’m a woman.”
“No, you’re not.”
Once again, I feel like I’ve walked into the middle of a conversation. What is this about? What did IW say that someone had a difference of opinion about? What comparison were they talking about that IW feels using Jews and Blacks as an analogy is fair or useful?
I don’t know. I was specifically interested in Willoughby’s bad analogy, not the whole conversation that led up to it. I assume it’s about the usual. Willoughby tweets a LOT and it’s all pretty much the same thing.
I agree with Ophelia; the subject matter of the preceding conversation is irrelevant because there can be no conversation in which that would be a valid comparison. IW, as most TRAs do, speaks in hyperbolic language, greatly exaggerating the danger he and his ilk are in from the conversations of women defending our spaces.
The analogy would be much more apt were it applied in reverse; watch any clip of TRAs preventing women and/or LGB people attempting to have a peaceful meeting, and it’s pretty obvious who are behaving like Nazis.
Seriously. Dude, you’re not Ruby Bridges, you’re the mob screaming at her.