Out of curiosity, I revisited the site of someone who recently unfollowed me after a few contentious discussions on feminism, the presidential candidate I’m rooting for, and so on.
I’m not going to be checking in or reading what she publishes anymore, but I figured “ah what the hell, I’ll take a look one last time.” Part of it was, I wondered whether our recent little spat would inspire any new material from her. My name was omitted – which is why I’m doing her the courtesy of not naming her or linking to her writings – but one of the most recent posts was all about our exchanges. And if she had named me, I would’ve responded directly to her.
Because she grossly misrepresented our conversations, which you can read for yourself if you want to look through the comments on some of my own recent posts. Anyways, her talking about my role, the way she portrays me, is not an issue because I’m the one she’s talking about. The issue is in the mis-characterization, and I’m only letting it slide because she went through the trouble of framing it in a way that she didn’t have to mention me. The only problem with that is, she’s says “such and such happened to me recently” but by not referring to me directly or quoting me word for word, her subscribers have to take her word for it.
You don’t have to take my word for it, ’cause like I said, you can go to a few of my most recent posts and read the conversations for yourself if you want to. I’m not going to link them or name them, but I also haven’t deleted her comments (or mine), because I’m not going to lie about what she said or how the exchange went and expect you to have to just trust that that’s how it went down. So I’m not going out of my way to present it all, but I’m not hiding it either. Anyways…
The reason this kind of thing bothers me so much is that if she had put my name into the mix, she would have been smearing me. As it is she’s misrepresenting the discussions, and it’s a common tactic (and easier, since she didn’t cite me specifically or quote me to drive her point home, as she should have and easily could have done if her recounting of it was, in fact, accurate) of people who have weak reasons and inaccurate info for their opinions. That, in my opinion, is exactly why she refrained from singling me out, refrained from linking to the post where most of our more heated back and forth took place, and refrained from quoting or providing context.
“I haven’t seen it so it’s not a factor for me.”
That’s what she said I said about the racism and sexism she claims is within Trump’s rhetoric. What I actually said was, I listened to the statements he made, the speeches, the interviews, and I didn’t see any racism present in them. I never claimed ignorance of the statements or rhetoric as a way of avoiding the truth, as she says I did. She implied I deliberately ignored things he said so I could continue to go on in blissful ignorance, when in reality I make a point of knowing exactly what he’s said. It’s the reason I challenged her assertions of racism and sexism in the 1st place.
I’ve seen virtually every specific remark, comment, answer, etc. that she referred to.
All of that to say, this is the kind of person that represents feminism nowadays (and the reason I wrote Dear Feminists… in the first place) and this is the kind of low level, pseudo intellectual criticism you can mostly expect to see from people who don’t like Trump. If people don’t agree with her she paints them as ignorant, even if they’re willing to have open discourse and listen to her side, even if they’re willing to take the time to respond point by point, and even if they explain the reasoning behind their continued disagreement. If people like her can’t make you change your mind with weak arguments, inaccurate (or questionable) information, and so on, then in their eyes you are the ignorant one. This is the kind of person that represents modern day feminism.
What’s more, she’s a classic example of a what people like Milo call social justice warriors.
They don’t respect diversity of opinion or thought, they don’t tolerate stances or perspectives that don’t line up perfectly with their own, and they habitually slander people who disagree with them.
I’m not going to spend any more of my time talking about her after this either, but given that she wrote a post directly inspired by me I thought I’d put my thoughts on it, and on our exchanges overall, into writing. And given how much she misrepresented those exchanges, I’d like to dedicate the next two posts to her. One is mostly just a transcript of Trump’s speech following the Orlando shooting; it was a great speech in that it was spot on in showcasing his positions, in recognizing the threat we’re facing as a nation, and dead on in illustrating the contrast between himself and Hillary Clinton in terms of national security, immigration, and terrorism.
You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to (obviously) and I’m going to be moving on from that subject immediately after I post it, but I think it’s important for my fellow voters to be exposed to the rhetoric, to what he actually says, and to inform themselves on their options. Agree with what he says in the speech or don’t, but I think if your going to vote in this election you should read it all the same and decide for yourself whether or not he’s making sense. That doesn’t just apply to this one speech, there are plenty of other’s I could share, but I’m not going to share a bunch of speech or interview transcripts here either. Much as I like Trump, he’s got to do the heavy lifting.
This is still ultimately my site, centered around me, not an extension of his campaign.