Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
I don't think it's trivial when someone pulls up horrendously uninformed MRA talking points, even if it's tangential to whatever other point they were making.
But, getting drawn further in than I'd like, the point you were making was comparing Milo to feminist speakers, and your example of a terrible thing a feminist speaker might say was entirely fictional. That's pretty poor stuff and arguing in bad faith.
No it's not, FFS. And the argument stands even though it was a quote from fiction. When you pointed it out, I immediately acknowledged it and thanked you. How is that arguing in bad faith?
I then explained why the quote was simply to illustrate speakers should be allowed to make offensive, devisive points, and found another one that is non-fictional, just for you. Further, people will have widely different points of view on what is offensive, hateful, and as you've shown, can even take things out of context now and then, so again, we should allow speakers of different political stripes to express their opinions to those who want to hear them.
Though you seem to begrudgingly acknowledge there was a whole big argument there that did not rely on the quote being non-fictional, you insist on ignoring the point and focusing on that triviality. Who's arguing in bad faith here?