J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans rhetoric and activism has enough influence to lead directly or otherwise to the further persecution and discrimination against an already marginalised minority group.
She at some point opted for or was identified by those with similar views as the term TERF, a ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’ (the acronym is arguably problematic). The queer community and queer allies use the term with a implied derogatory connotation. A number of TERFs who picked up on this connotation now believe that it is an insult, and do not wish to be labelled as such (despite TERFs coining the term themseIves).
J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans rhetoric and activism has enough influence to lead directly or otherwise to the further persecution and discrimination against an already marginalised minority group.
So does Lemmy and its developers pro-Uyghur slavery/genocide viewpoints. That doesn’t stop you from using or enjoying Lemmy though. Everyone has their own red line. Lemmy hasn’t crossed yours just like J. K. Rowling hasn’t crossed theirs.
No, that wouldn’t be a straw man argument. If you’re going to try to call fallacy on something you would have to argue appeal to hypocrisy. However the hypocrisy is based on your post and previous posts calling for a boycott for something you find morally reprehensible while at the same time using a platform created by the morally reprehensible. One you have a problem with the other you do not. It calls into question your own morals when they only serve you when you think they should. That’s all.
Yeah uh no, I didn’t argue one way or the other about a boycott. That was your assumption and you’re trying to get me to fight it. If I cared to tell people what to think about a heated topic on the internet and then defend my position it from a bunch of mouthbreathers, I would go back to Reddit.
You seen to be getting pretty upset about this topic for someone not arguing about it. If you don’t have a position, that’s fine. It doesn’t seem that way, but that’s you. Also that’s again not how straw man is defined.
J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans rhetoric and activism has enough influence to lead directly or otherwise to the further persecution and discrimination against an already marginalised minority group.
She at some point opted for or was identified by those with similar views as the term TERF, a ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’ (the acronym is arguably problematic). The queer community and queer allies use the term with a implied derogatory connotation. A number of TERFs who picked up on this connotation now believe that it is an insult, and do not wish to be labelled as such (despite TERFs coining the term themseIves).
So does Lemmy and its developers pro-Uyghur slavery/genocide viewpoints. That doesn’t stop you from using or enjoying Lemmy though. Everyone has their own red line. Lemmy hasn’t crossed yours just like J. K. Rowling hasn’t crossed theirs.
What exactly are you arguing against, here? I don’t waste time on people who try to strawman me.
No, that wouldn’t be a straw man argument. If you’re going to try to call fallacy on something you would have to argue appeal to hypocrisy. However the hypocrisy is based on your post and previous posts calling for a boycott for something you find morally reprehensible while at the same time using a platform created by the morally reprehensible. One you have a problem with the other you do not. It calls into question your own morals when they only serve you when you think they should. That’s all.
Yeah uh no, I didn’t argue one way or the other about a boycott. That was your assumption and you’re trying to get me to fight it. If I cared to tell people what to think about a heated topic on the internet and then defend my position it from a bunch of mouthbreathers, I would go back to Reddit.
Your comment is a de facto strawman.
You seen to be getting pretty upset about this topic for someone not arguing about it. If you don’t have a position, that’s fine. It doesn’t seem that way, but that’s you. Also that’s again not how straw man is defined.
Im genuinely interested in a source for this statement.