😄 No, I don't mind being disagreed with at all. If there's some substance to the disagreement I actually find it valuable. But you're not disagreeing with me or anything I've said. You're not even disagreeing with Gervais. You are, for reasons that aren't quite clear, "dragging in" JK Rowling even though she's completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
In fact, you're not even disagreeing with Rowling! If anything, you're disagreeing with the "structure" of something Gervais said because, you claim, it is like the structure that Rowling used in a separate tweet. Yet the only structural element they have in common, is the word "but".
1. Yes, calling your criticism "childish" wasn't the kindest wording I could have chosen. Though I stand by its accuracy. Because it's not based on any reasoning. It's just a (pretty cliched at this point) way to claim that somebody is being insincere without any evidence. "...it's what comes AFTER the "but" that reveals bad faith, contempt, and willful ignorance." Like seriously, you're accusing me of fallacious arguments? What exactly is your rationale for this argument?
2. I interpret your argument as being; "Well, he said something that sounded nice and supportive, but then he said 'but' and said something I disagree with. So I'm disregarding everything that came before the word 'but.'" I freely admit this is just my interpretation. I could obviously be wrong. So if I am, please explain what I'm missing. But the line I quoted above seems pretty clear cut on this point.
3. If you arguing the Gervais doesn't really mean what he's saying (which it very much seems you are), the insinuation is that he's trying to influence somebody's opinion of him by pretending to believe something he doesn't. We can ignore the bit about caring what you think if it helps. The question is, what motivation do you think he has to be insincere?
4. Again, that's what conversation is for. I can only interpret the words as you type them. I have no problem with my interpretation is wrong. Please explain, in the context of your initial comment what I'm missing. Your wording seems extremely clear to me.
There are many reasons why this conversation is difficult. And I'm not pretending I'm blameless. But maybe part of the problem is that when given an opportunity to talk about the issue in whatever way you wanted, you choose to use JK Rowling as a pathway to immediately assume bad faith on the part of Gervais, and to do so, as far as I can tell, solely on the basis of the word "but." How exactly does that protect/respect trans people or women?
