so. the thing about that hbomberguy vaguepost is that it's a prime example of this really bad rhetorical habit that hbomb's always had. he likes to cherry-pick the worst-sounding lines from whatever he's criticising and present them, out of context, in a mocking tone. the words of Patricia's that he used to discredit her were: "I can't think of a single good argument against lolicon."
sounds bad, right? yeah! it does! hbomb was banking on that gut reaction to those contextless words to make you agree with his point without giving it much thought, just like he does in his videos sometimes. (the example that sprung to mind is his critique of Peter Capaldi's regeneration episode in Doctor Who, when he brings up the dialogue "oh! it's not an evil plan!" as if it's evident of the episodes shortcomings when ACTUALLY he TOTALLY MISREPRESENTS THE EPI- I'm gonna stop, don't get me started on Doctor Who I won't be able to shut up.)
it's an effective rhetorical tactic for sure, because it hooks you with your gut reaction and discourages you from thinking any further. that's why he uses it! but when you take a step back and look at the full picture, you notice that this clever rhetorical tactic is actually just the skillful application of a very simple way of presenting information: lying, that is.
because what is the context of the words "I can't think of a single good argument against lolicon?"
well that's the first lie. there isn't any context for those words 'cause that's not what she said. in the thread hbomb's referring to, Patricia starts off by saying "ive been waiting to find or come up with a good argument against lolicon since i was like 19 and i havent really yet." and goes on to ponder why most common arguments against lolicon don't really hold, since most arguments are concerned about harm to actual children, notably different from drawings. (I should say here, the obvious argument against lolicon is "it's fucked up of someone to want and enjoy that," an argument that I would also levy against, say, someone making rape jokes. but that's neither here nor there.) having read through the thread, it's pretty tame? idk, I don't see anything there to get your knickers in a twist over. it's some fairly mild observations about an uncomfortable topic.
I think that the subject matter is what trips people up here, as well as who it's being discussed by. lolicon is already a very uncomfortable topic nobody really wants to talk about. adding on to that, transmisogyny primes people to see trans women as predatory, so the average sleeper's instincts go "taboo subject + trans woman = oh no!" and, if you don't stop to give it a little thought, that can be hard to get past. that's why this little rhetorcial trick of hbomb's has been so effective here! as I said, it hooks you on that "taboo subject + trans woman" gut reaction and diacourages you from thinking about it further. kind of like a thought-terminating cliché, except this time it's a culture-war-instigating cliché.
so, in conclusion? cis guy leverages transmisogyny to ignite a flame of harassment against a trans woman for Saying Something He Didn't Like, then goes quiet as the internet mob does what it does best, spurred on by his words. oh, but he deleted the post, so he's actually not at fault here, nevermind.
I don't believe hbomb meant for this to happen. we know that, when he's not making train-of-thought posts off the cuff, he's particular about stressing to his audience not to harass anyone he critiques. but his silence during the deluge of hate he's opened the floodgates for is chilling. is it really that hard to say "hey I fucked up, please don't harass this woman?"
I reckon an apology is warranted. some kind of public recognition that this is Not What Should Happen, at least. if hbomb doesn't do anything of the sort, it can only be due to cowardice.
andulkaphoto
snowghoul
janainaart
yousharknotpass
