erin

If one is to engage in pedantry, it can't hurt to at least be correct. Calling me a "bougouise feminist" was hysterical though.

God forbid a rhetorical argument fall into multiple categories. I never said whataboutism and false equivalences are the same thing. You happened to do both. Equivocation has nothing to do with setting two things as equal, it's the use of ambiguous language to avoid the bigger picture of an issue or to avoid committing to a stance. It is another form of logical fallacy. Via equivocation (omission and vague language) you omitted key facts (social power imbalance) that makes bringing up a connected, but not equivalent, issue (replacing men are trash with any other group, which is a form of whataboutism) a false equivalence.

You can say I don't know what I'm talking about. That doesn't make it true. Your equivocation of your whataboutism argument led to forming a false equivalence.

All lives matter in response to BLM is both whataboutism and a false equivalence. Just because someone didn't say "what about" or "these things are equal doesn't make those facts untrue. There is an implied "what about all those other lives, don't they matter?" which in itself implies that the societal inequalities BLM rose in response to are equal to the pressures felt but the rest of "all lives."

God damn bougouise feminists.

Lol

In your comment, whether intended or not. It's not a long comment. By "whatabouting" the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.

You should reference my other comment in this thread. You're correct that statements like "all men are trash" are unjustly prejudiced, but you're making a false equivalence.

I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems to me the obvious answer to your consent dilemma is "no animal consents to being eaten." I feed my cat a non-vegan diet, for the record. I'm just not pretending that the fish likes it or anything. If a perfectly healthy vegan diet is possible for a cat, which I'm honestly not clear on, then it's definitely ethical to do so.

If you extrapolated the moral dilemma to the extreme, it would be like saying "it's unethical to take the knife away from that serial murderer. He just wants to murder and he didn't consent to stopping!" Obviously, that's a ridiculous comparison, but so is making the consent argument. My point isn't that feeding cats meat is wrong (again, I feed my cat meat), it's that making a consent argument against veganism is silly.

ml stands for Marxist-Leninist. When anyone is allowed to make their own instance, and instances or users can defederate or block what they don't want to see, why can't an instance be political? That's like saying "no political communities!" Just block them and move on, just as they can do the same. You commented in the memes community of a communist instance and got annoyed that you got banned for being anti-communist. Plenty of instances out there, they don't all need to cater to every person.