“I’ve been warned not to talk about it,” the woman wrote, before revealing snippets of the day she says she was arrested for publishing gay erotica.
“I’ll never forget it - being escorted to the car in full view, enduring the humiliation of stripping naked for examination in front of strangers, putting on a vest for photos, sitting in the chair, shaking with fear, my heart pounding.”
The handle, Pingping Anan Yongfu, is among at least 8 in recent months which have shared accounts on Chinese social media platform Weibo of being arrested for publishing gay erotic fiction. As authors recounted their experiences, dozens of lawyers offered pro bono help.
At least 30 writers, nearly all of them women in their 20s, have been arrested across the country since February, a lawyer defending one told the BBC. Many are out on bail or awaiting trial, but some are still in custody. Another lawyer told the BBC that many more contributors were summoned for questioning.
Yes, that’s exactly what they’re talking about and you’re being extremely weird in making it a priority of discussion on something at best tangentially related.
It’s just a straw man writ large because you’re miffed at another online argument you had somewhere else.
We are referring to the staunch defenders of the oppressive system which this thread is about, defenders who are very proactive on lemmy. The fact that you cannot see the relevance is on you.
Just because you feel like the straw men deserve it doesn’t change that you’re arguing with hypotheticals versions you’ve created instead of actual people.
You are using straw man incorrectly. Don’t even try to go down the path of rhetorical flaws if you fuck that one up.
You’ve literally defined the argument of an opposing group to look stupid so you can dunk on them. You’re arguing with a straw man. This isn’t even a critique of your rhetorical basis though, it’s just normal Internet lameness.
You cannot present a strawman argument when the side you are arguing against isn’t present. Thus I was not making a straw man. That’s just insulting tankies
Don’t bring these up unless you understand them and in this case you do not.
Lol, what? Do you seriously think you cannot create a straw man argument in anything but direct debate? Sure Mr. Smartman.
Hint, logical fallacies are about the logic, not the debate.
I think you need to be actually arguing with someone to make an argument against them, yes. You cannot make an argument when you aren’t doing so. You need to be debating to make logical fallacies. No one was doing that hence no one made a strawman argument.
Do you need this further explained? No argument was made. The side you are claiming I am making a strawman argument against is not present. There is no debate.
You used it wrong. Learn from this and move on. Don’t misuse them in the future.
Lol, sure man. Definitely no one ever makes an argument in an editorial. It’s not possible as their opponent is not present, may not even read it, and frequently will not be allowed to publish a rebuttal to the same audience.
Arguments are about the audience, not the opponent. Making a straw man when your opponent is not present is the most common form of the fallacy. When they’re there they might just say that’s not what they’re argument is.
This wasn’t an editorial. It was a snarky comment that you inappropriately are trying to make into an argument because you completely misread the situation