Trebuchet of mud
Jesse Singal on Chase Strangio’s casual defamation of him and subsequent evasive maneuvers to avoid blame for the defamation:
Yesterday, GQ ran an interview between Saeed Jones and Chase Strangio, one of the highest-profile attorneys at the ACLU, about trans kids that contains the following passage: I think what we’re seeing now is this moment where there are these loud voices who feel so empowered and emboldened to speak out with just utter hatred for trans people. And a lot of it emerging from the UK anti-trans discourse in JK Rowling and then that sort of being an impetus for this Substack brigade, asI [sic] like to call them—that idea of the self-victimized, well-paid writer who wants nothing more than to be able to hate others without consequence. That sort of famed victimhood of censorship, which is really just self-censorship and complaining, whether it was JK Rowling, or Abigail Shrier, and Bari Weiss. And then it became sort of the cause of Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald and Jesse Singal and all these other people who are just somehow finding their moment to be like, “Oh yes, trans people are so disgusting. And I feel that way. And now I get to frame this around my right to speak without criticism.” I did not necessarily anticipate the magnitude of the public discursive escalation and the sense of empowerment that people feel attacking trans people, and doing so while fueling a very dangerous set of legal and policy objectives that I think even these people would claim to not be aligned with. [emphasis mine]
Well you see it all hinges on how you interpret “to be like.” If you take it to be a ubiquitous substitute for “say” then it seems defamatory, but if it’s an actual comparison then…it’s entirely unclear what Strangio meant.
I’m kidding. It’s the ubiquitous substitute for say thing.
The bolded passage is straightforwardly defamatory. I don’t know if it rises to the level of legal defamation, which is a high threshold in the United States, and I have no plans on suing anyone. But in the straightforward sense of “lying about people in public to attempt to harm their reputations,” it obviously qualifies.
So Chase Strangio, arguably the face of the ACLU at this point, decided to fabricate allegations about a number of journalists in the pages of GQ. Not the behavior you’d expect from someone in that sort of position. Strange times, I guess.
There’s a lot about Chase Strangio that you wouldn’t expect from someone in that sort of position.
That was yesterday. Today, Strangio backtracked a bit, seeming to blame this both on an absent period but also on us rubes who “are choosing to read [the passage] in a particular way.” (The “particular way” in question being “the exact plain meaning of the text, as per basic linguistic conventions regarding the use of conjunctions,” I guess. God, we’re idiots!)
Strangio four hours ago:
Yes people “chose to read it” the way it was written. How foolish and uninclusive.
Then a staff attorney popped up to do some more parsing of the meaning so that Strangio would look like an innocent bystander.
Singal sums up:
I just find this sequence bizarre:
1. High-profile ACLU staffer defames a bunch of people.
2. Said staffer blames the defamation on a missing period and/or people reading the sentence the way a human would rather than the way a lawyer would.
3. ACLU staff attorney chimes in publicly to say, in effect, “Well, it isn’t technically libel because of this nerdy legal rule.”
I don’t understand how anyone at the ACLU could possibly find this acceptable. I’m not wrong in thinking the organization used to be better-functioning and more professional than this, right?
He’s not wrong but that was before Twitter.
Hell, I’m still waiting for actual evidence supporting this claim:
Show me the “hate.” Really. I have yet to see it. If it’s so pervasive, and obvious, and ugly, you can quote some, right? You do not argue in good faith. You do not represent the views of your opponents honestly or fairly. I can not take your word for it that what you say is true, is actually the case. You’re a lawyer FFS, prove your case.
YNnB, the cynic in me says lawyers don’t have to prove their case, only argue it.
Also, what kind of person with legal training starts multiple consecutive sentences ‘and’. Any kind of writing training for that matter.
I have a lot of trouble with the use of the word “phobia” in modern woke ideology as well. Phobia is FEAR. Nobody is afraid of “trans” people. (I may be a little afraid FOR children and tweens whose “supportive” parents ok hormones or even surgery for 12 year olds, but that is still not phobia per se) We are just skeptical of their fact claims. Such as “Trans women are women”
Of course, the whole movement seems predicated on shifting definitions, squirrelly language, and related claims of victimization. But remember, all, doubting the claims of an activist is just like stabbing them in the stomach!
I guess I’m naive in thinking the “argument” would be a bit more sophisticated than “I know you are, but what am I?”
The phobic ones are likely those very parents, as many of them are hoping to “trans away the gay.” It’s tragic, and criminal.
A mere stabbing? Oh dear. I think you have to catch up. You’re several rounds of redefinition behind. Last I heard it was the same as “murder” or “genocide.” Where they go to next in the escalation/inflation of transperbole is beyond me. The past? The future? Other planets? Other dimensions?
The Republican war against trans kids? Hardly. This is how Chasio “reads” the trans cult’s war on anyone who disagrees with their agenda. It’s not just Republicans, though that’s the trans cult’s target du jour, and the trans cult fad is endangering children, not the other way around. So we are expected to “read” Chasio’s attacks a particular way now? I think I’ll do my own translating, Chasio sucks at it. :P
twiliter, it does fit with the thing so many trans activists are claiming, though. If you are not fully woke and on board with every word of (today’s) trans dogma, you are a nasty, Trump-voting, children-in-cages celebrating, war-mongering Republican. It’s sort of like TWAW, only this, I guess would be TERFsAR.
@7 I was wondering what kind of Democrats they are trying to impress, the ultra wokesters are already decided, and the moderates are with the Republicans on this (along with anyone with common sense and understands the implications). Partisan politics don’t really apply, so I assume they are just attempting to redefine their battle lines or something.
I do not seek to make light of a person’s appearance, but it is often noted how trans women seem to strive for particular looks, often playing in to their preferred stereotypes of what they think a woman is. I cannot help but notice Chase looks like a cross between a playbook and Groucho Marx. It is truly sad how much she hates who she is, but it is even more interesting to consider what she envisions being a man is about through the appearance she strives for.