Embed Notice

Image cropped from original screenshot posted by @Ladyfat

All right class, here’s a lesson on language trickery, courtesy of Contrapoints.

Contrapoints has a goal, and that is to make people think Keen is a dangerous individual who shouldn’t be listened to, or given a platform. But Contrapoints also has a problem, in that Keen hasn’t actually said or done anything that would make her such a dangerous individual. So what can he do? He can lie.

But he doesn’t want to lie straight up, because ordinary lies are easy to spot, and it would take away any deniability he might have. So he sneaks in a dishonest claim by using a specific type of subordinate clause, and this allows him to pretend that his dishonest claim is in fact an established fact.

He says:
…she’s a full-on eliminationist who denies the existence of trans people.

That little word there, “who”, is effectively the equivalent of “=”. In formulating his words like this, Contrapoints is saying that being an “eliminationist” is the same as not believing in the concept of “trans people”.

This little clause does two things. It maintains that:
1 - “eliminationist” means someone who does not believe that there’s any such thing as “trans”
2 - those who don’t believe there’s any such thing as “trans” want trans-identified people to die/disappear

And it does so in a manner, which suggests that both of these propositions are unquestionable, obvious, well-established facts.

Contrapoints apparently has a degree in philosophy. I therefore find it unlikely that he wouldn’t know what he’s doing here. Obviously then, the only conclusion left for me is that he is deliberately engaging in trickery through his language. So if there’s anyone here who should not be listened to, it’s Contrapoints. Not Keen.

(It’s also worth noting, that in saying “ PP is not a ‘valid concerns’ transphobe”, he smuggles in the claim “people with ‘valid concerns’ are transphobic”, as if it was an established fact. Just more of the same tactics.)