Sorry, I’m really not understanding here. Isn’t his point that the concept is dumb because if commoditizes sex? Aren’t we in agreement here? What am I missing? (honest confusion please @ me)
-
-
Is he, or is the paper he’s talking about? Or is he because he takes he paper seriously? Isn’t his point that the sexual revolution traded one more of violence for another? I may be reading into him, idk. Cuz you’re def right it’s a cover, but one enabled by culture maybe?
-
The paper he is talking about does so, and he takes that paper as a serious starting point. But you can't take the "incel" rhetoric at face value for the reason I stated.
-
That’s fair. Let me rephrase to make sure I’m understanding: it doesn’t matter if he says anything right, because it’s not worth the legitimacy that gives to a symptom-not-cause of what underlies violence against women, and is therefore a distraction at best?
-
He can find a way to talk about this thing that is right without giving legitimacy to this awful line of argument.
-
Right. That makes sense. It’s the question of when and where to fight a battle, this one says that “incel” is a real thing worth addressing, so does more harm than good. Thanks!
-
Yes, that's a good way of putting it
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.