“Sticks and stones loser”
Jason Stan continues to cover himself with glory.
Jason has met only “pro trans” feminists, therefore Jane Clare Jones doesn’t speak for all women. (Mind you, she’s never claimed to speak for all women, and Stanley’s sneaky insinuation that she does say that is…sneaky.) It’s not a very powerful argument. Jon Pike puts it more bluntly.
What did our not at all lazy philosopher do? Debate the complex issues? No…
Another philosopher:
That’s what I was railing about a couple of days ago – all that wild, reckless name-calling of feminist women, as if we were a gang of Proud Boys or similar.
I’m sure people will be admiring that tweet 200 years from now.
Boola boola.
A regular Schopenhauer, that one.
Fake propaganda? As opposed to what, genuine propaganda? Does the dude who wrote a book about propaganda understand the concept of propaganda? Jeez…
Wait, what argument did you demolish? I didn’t see you demolish anything, except the reputations of you, your university, and philosophy as an intellectual discipline.
Feminists are only feminists if they agree with Jason donchaknow.
I am generally pretty dubious about anyone who declares that they have demolished, DESTROYED, etc. someone else’s argument.
Frankly I’m not too wild about people declaring that someone else has done so, either (as with all of those YouTube videos insisting they will show me how Ben Shapiro or whoever DESTROYED someone).
First, it’s a weird fit to treat what you’re claiming is an intellectual exchange as if it were a pro wrestling match.
Second, I’m quite capable of evaluating an argument for myself and deciding what’s persuasive, thanks.
I love how this guy wants his Twitter feed to be his intellectual legacy. I mean, he’s certainly not the only one to colossally embarrass himself on Twitter–I wonder if there’s a particular type of addictive personality that can’t help but spectacularly self-destruct on Twitter.
Screechy,
Yes, if we’ve learned one thing over all these years it’s that the ‘destruction’ of an argument is largely in the eye of the beholder. Rhetoric in practice is more the art of justification than it is the art of persuasion.
You say “pro wrestling”, I say “porn”. Look at the descriptions applied to women in porn videos. That’s where this language comes from.