4 ms·
> In this case it was validated by an admission that an argument was tactically made. Huh? Essentially all I have said is this: "I agree with the Economist a
by Moodles 5y ago
> In this case it was validated by an admission that an argument was tactically made.
Huh? Essentially all I have said is this:
"I agree with the Economist article. This is my personal experience also. Here's an example."
Tactually made? What does this even mean? Do you think I have a hidden agenda of bigotry towards trans people or something? What exactly am I doing wrong in your eyes? Is there any actual specific sentence I have written you disagree with?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoFrom your original post: > > The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it. > This is 100% my personal experience also. And it's looking a lot like your experience here. You're getting told that you can't have put forth your comments in good faith, that it was "tactically made". (Which I interpret as meaning that it's to push an agenda rather than in good faith. I could be mistaken, but threatofrain is not clarifying what that accusation means.) So, yeah, I stand by my statement that this whole thread proves your point...
- Moodles 5y agoYeah, so perceptive to have read between the lines and seen the darkness in my soul. \s