Piers
Yep. Dishonest or not very bright. I mean... Relative to me, no one is that but still. Bur you've backpedal on some of the Palestine stuff so at least you're not entirely beyond reason.
Hym "Yes, Piers. Dishonest. I don't remember in relationship to what though... Probably covid or Trump... At first the Palestine Tate interview but you're clearly coming around. Aslo, how you engage with the trans topic is fundamentally dishonest and the people you have on to debate the trans side are fucking tomato-cans. They suck. They suck at that. Not even a little bit good at it. They look like idiots. They are idiots. And you only have them on when you need someone to look like an idiot for the conservatives. I mean, I was watching Destiny (And you likely thing he's good at defending the position) on it and even he is sub-par. And he isn't 'pointing out hypocrisy' he's engaging in the reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Meaning he's misrepresenting the premise of argument. By asking whether or not you can ARBITRARILY identify as a black man you insinuate both that THAT is what the transgenders are doing (arbitrarily identifying) and presupposing that there are no males whose internal being, their psyche, aligns more with what we would commonly associate with the term 'Woman.' You're also ignoring entirely the shift in nomenclature that refers to the social elements of personhood as 'Gender' and the biological elements as 'Sex.' And what you do is pick the people least capable holding their position and then use fallacy as evidence for the false of their proposition. And it works because both you and people are dumb as dogshit."