erin (she/her)

Saying “your views support this” is not making the argument you’re claiming it does.

You claimed they made several strawman arguments. The one you are pointing to is where they called your argument corporate apologia, which isn’t a strawman, whether you are or are not l, as it’s referring to the beneficiaries of your argument, which they argue to be corporations. The points they are making are sound.

For example (none of this is my actual beliefs), I could make an argument for unrestricted gun ownership. Someone, in disagreement with me, could say I need to take my gun lobby apologia and leave, after discussing why my position supports the gun lobby. In actuality, hypothetical me wants easier gun ownership for queer people and other marginalized groups. Me not supporting the gun lobby doesn’t make that a strawman. They aren’t making a strawman argument by saying because my argument supports the gun lobby, it is automatically invalid.

They do this exact same thing against your argument. They argue the points that your beliefs ultimately support corporations, not that your opinion is automatically invalid because you support corporations. If all they said was that last line about corporate apologia, you’d have a point, but they don’t. You’re simply misusing and diluting the strawman fallacy. You also claimed they made several strawman arguments, but failed to demonstrate the one example you pulled. I don’t even really care about your arguments or theirs in regards to my response, as others have covered my beliefs already, I only am concerned in discussing the improper use of logical fallacies to discredit people you disagree with.

I suppose you’re talking about the part about your post history, which seems flimsy. Just because some of your posts agree with the other poster doesn’t mean the ones specifically referred to don’t exist. A strawman is putting your ideas up framed such that you do not support them, but arguing that you do in order to make a simpler argument. That doesn’t appear to be happening, as lacking nuance isn’t the same thing as a strawman. You do seem to be making the argument referred to, and having a nuanced position from other posts doesn’t make that untrue. It also seems irresponsible to use that one point to discredit the entire argument, which broadly doesn’t care about said point.

I don’t see it, as it seems like you are in fact arguing that tools are neutral. Giving counter examples isn’t the same thing as a strawman, it’s challenging your argument. Did you mean a different part of their argument?

I understand that you disagree with their points, but I’m more interested in where the strawman arguments are. I don’t see any, and I’d like to understand if I’m missing a clear fallacy due to my own biases or not.

Can you point out and explain each strawman in detail? It sounds more like someone made good analogies that counter your point and you buzzword vomited in response.

I thought the point of this was to treat them both the same. If yes, you’re not cool for invalidating two people’s genders, if no, you’re still not cool for invalidating one person’s gender. Maybe I’m misreading but I don’t see your comment represented in the meme.