It’s just another attempt to deliberately confuse people.
The right did it when we went after Milo Yiannopoulos, claiming that we were only targeting him because he was a gay Jew (which was very obviously not the reason). Some rightist dullard several years ago said that an interviewer only rolled his eyes at her because he was sexist. Now we’re seeing the right misportray our anticolonialism as ‘antisemitic’ and coming up with these horseshit reinterpretations of our very simple demands.
I think that they know that these are all bold-faced lies. They tell them in hopes of confusing innocent people who may be unacquainted with the contexts. Anybody with a fully functional brain can tell that calling a cissexist bore a ‘heinous loser’ is very obviously not an example of misogyny, but the context gets lost in the game of telephone that anticommunists love playing.
The essence of these arguments from the right is an opportunistic appropriation of liberal identity politics. Liberals already misunderstand identity politics, often flattening them to “minorities are right about everything” when minorities say something liberals agree with. Of course, this gets reduced to “all perspectives are valuable” when minorities say something liberals disagree with, if not just censorship. The reactionaries are just as capable of reading that pattern as anyone else, so they’re just taking it and running with it.
Smarter liberals might be able to recognize that “minorities are right about everything” is clearly incorrect and obviously not a valid framework, so they’ll argue against these reactionary tactics by making “all perspectives are valuable” universal. The problem for them is that reactionaries might be armed with examples of liberals shutting down discussion by pointing to identity (e.g. shutting down antizionists by saying Jewish voices are important, then flipping backwards when Jewish antizionists speak up)
The dialectical approach is to recognize that identity politics is only useful as it pertains to understanding a part of an individual’s or group’s perspective on an issue, but it must be held in conversation with everything else that’s going on, the context of the conflict being discussed.
I actually do think theyre saying this in good faith, theyre just idiots. Their understanding of feminism is that it means uplifting and celebrating all women in all circumstances regardless of their actions or character. It’s why they hate it.
I think that they know that these are all bold-faced lies.
sartre on antisemites
Kind of curious, how do we all deal with these snakes when they try their semantic mind games?
Usually my whole thing just telling them “don’t play dumb” (something that has gotten me banned before lol.)
Respecting women is when you never challenge anything they say ever
Can I be the one woman where this is OK tho
I’m obviously compelled to say yes lol
New infinite energy glitch, put two women who disagree in a hamsterwheel /s
😤
JK Rowling: Disrespects women
Pedro Pascal: Calls her out for disrespecting women
This dumbass: WOW PEDRO PASCAL DOESN’T RESPECT WOMEN
Lol these yokels don’t even know what respecting a woman as a person is. Their “respect” is most likely chivalry. Pascal is arguing with Joannes political opinion here, he takes her seriously. Which is why he calls her a heinous loser
Also, respecting women as a group ≠ respecting each individual woman. Pedro Pascal can perfectly well disrespect JK Rowling for her transphobia without disrespecting women as a whole. Joanne doesn’t represent all women, thankfully.
The humanity of trans people isn’t a simple disagreement
“one issue”
Well, yeah, it’s a pretty big issue though, it’s not that she likes Mountain Dew flavored BBQ sauce over Dr. Pepper flavored BBQ sauce.
Dr Pepper flavored BBQ sauce… Ummm my treat brain needs this.
Soy right
He actually said that about her behavior, not her as an individual. She’s acting like a heinous loser but may not necessarily be one. To make sure no one mistakes her for being a heinous loser, she should stop acting like one.Glad I don’t know who Jeremy is
anyway who is he
TERFs don’t deserve respect.
Either they’re too stupid to understand cause and effect, or they’re complete hypocrites. Why is ok for them to be rude first but the victims just need to sit there and take it? Besides, being called a loser is a drop in the fucking water compared to what they deserve. Just laugh it off if you’re really the stronger group.
Think about if the roles were reversed. No seriously! Do they believe that in order to be respected as a man that the people in their lives need to be unquestioningly given carte blanche to be intolerant? That no matter what they do it’s all “hip hip hooray!!” to be celebrated? “My wife isn’t respecting me. She said I was an asshole and started crying when I drove home drunk.”
Politics is opinion. Public good is opinion. Interpersonal relationships are opinion. Laws are relative. Nothing is anything.
Respect women… especially the ones who want to gatekeep what a woman is
the way they’re reacting you’d think “loser” is a gendered slur
This argument is so fragile LOL.
When Vaush calls women “removed” then he’s using their gender as an insult.
When this guy calls a transphobe a “loser”, he is not attacking her identity.
Such an idiotic take
