> This is not a random essayist but an activist for a particular set of broader societal changes who is writing this piece.
What’s your message here? Are you saying a random essay would be more credible or less credible?
I’m not super informed on this topic, but admittedly, I would give more credibility to someone who’s consistent on their message and not willing to sway with the wind for personal gain- regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them.
I can’t read the article but the headline is making claims about the safety of sex workers on OnlyFans. Someone with an ideological axe to grind has an incentive to distort or selectively highlight the facts around such claims. It’s worth noting they are trying to persuade you to their viewpoint and not attempting to offer an objective account.
It means both that she’s biased, and also that she’s incredibly hostile to sex workers, which makes her one of the least qualified people to talk about what is safe for sex work or good for sex workers.
"Biased" can't become code for has a well-known point-of-view that disagrees with mine.
I don't agree with Catherine McKinnon on anything, but I don't think she should be disqualified from speaking because she believes what she is saying. Her arguments should be discussed on their merits.
There is a reason I wrote my post in as carefully a neutral manner as I did. My message is that the author has a significant body of other work supporting her position and has spent considerable time developing and advocating for it, and that this is not really about OnlyFans alone but part of a broader social movement the author is a notable part of. I am deliberately not taking a stance on that movement as part of my comments here, because I think it’s a complicated topic deserving of serious discussion, and that that discussion has been ongoing for forty years as part of mainstream feminist debate.
Perversely, it seems that writing in an intentionally neutral way has caused me to get downvoted to zero, while the top comment calls the author a crank.
The author of the piece has an agenda, selectively using anecdotal evidence to gain attention. Think the headline “Florida doctor dies after receiving Pfizer vaccine” that was published not long ago. Nobody reads the follow up piece where it’s ruled unrelated.
What’s your message here? Are you saying a random essay would be more credible or less credible?
I’m not super informed on this topic, but admittedly, I would give more credibility to someone who’s consistent on their message and not willing to sway with the wind for personal gain- regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them.