I didn’t say “They aren’t much better”

You are not a reasonable human being, and you are willfully trying to ignore what I’m saying. Further, you are not even presenting specific examples of his actions to defend your argument.

You are basically just an internet troll at this point.

They are the same thing. Devil’s advocate is trying to present the arguments of the opposing position. Steel manning is trying to present the opposing position in the best way possible. Both require understanding the other’s position. This is critical to abstract thinking.

And further, the arguments presented in at…

How am I equating actions when I don’t even have a clear picture what the actions are? When I say as far as I’m aware one set of actions is worse than another?

You people are going absolutely insane. And you are killing the liberal movement with your ideological purity, and setting up terrible 2018s and 2020s with this…

I literally said “Anita is better than Sakkad” and your accusing me of equivocation. You are not having the same conversation as me. There’s no speaking to you if you cannot actually respond to what I say.

And further, everyone has said “the shit he has done”, yet when asking for specific examples, I have been called, to list a few, 1) Mysongistic 2) An MRA, 3) A serial abuser 4) Racist (that one someone needs to explain to me).

So, no, I have no fucking clue what he’s done. Because every time I task, people like you…

Why do you ignore when I directly say “they aren’t equal”? This is a straw man. You are selecting individual snippets, and ignoring my broader argument, to make them easier to attack.

I have made, several times, condemnations of Sakkad, a person who, literally 48 hours ago I had never heard of. How is this not good…

Look, I can link pages too:

“This still isn’t enough for me to ignore Anita’s behavior, but it absolutely means I still at least have a far higher opinion of her than I do of Sargon.”

A comment I said literally hours ago. 

I’m not the straw man bigot you’re looking for.

“This still isn’t enough for me to ignore Anita’s behavior, but it absolutely means I still at least have a far higher opinion of her than I do of Sargon.”

How the hell is that an equivalence? 

I’m arguing that her action both was wrong, and tangentially looks wrong. The latter is more immediately damaging to her perception.

I am saying it is not the morally best position to name call in front of a crowded audience in some bizarre power play. I don’t see how Anita’s actions helped her perception or were morally in the right.

And again, I’m contextualizing this as an outside observer. If you did push a kid down to knock him out of the way…

I don’t defend positions I don’t endorse, and I wouldn’t endorse Sarkesian debating him. I also wouldn’t endorse name calling.

Again, then, given the semantics of the word harassment, my use of that word was inaccurate towards the definition. I’ll agree verbal abuse would be far more accurate.

I’m actually unaware of this. I was mostly going off this article and one video I could find from the back of the room of the Women’s panel.

I just watched Boogie’s closing statement and his response video. He seems completely reasonable and this is certainly a further rung down in my mind after hearing Boogie’s…

Perhaps my language was imprecise. When I say correct action, I don’t mean legal. It may be more accurate to say the best action. That is, the one with the greatest morality. This of course is my view on this, and I’m actively trying to understand.

What I disagree with is that filling three rows is the same as active…

Thank you for answering that. That is actually reassuring to here. As I said, I’m trying to delve as much as I can into the unique history here, as I now do fully trust you are being honest. I am having difficulty in the noise finding the specific examples, and I’d rather avoid watching Sargon videos all day, but…

She doesn’t have to debate him on a panel. There isn’t a dichotomy between debating someone and calling them human garbage.

Not helping