I quote:

> Blow is a full-bore fascist sympathizer who also doesn't seem to think that women have any role to play in his profession.

The latter part being argued with a post where he merely opines that the sexes have different interests.

“who also” means “in addition to”, it doesn’t mean the points follow from each other.

The quote does not support your point.

Don't be silly, it's brought up as a support clause that is also lacking any factual evidence.

They're reading the statement correctly, imo.

It might be the _logically_ correct interpretation that these are separate things. Now let's talk about rhetorics. Why are two unrelated, heavy accusations combined in a single sentence? Then consider that the added accusation (misogynist) doesn't hold water even on a logical level (let alone the bad faith involved here), it is a crass misreading of the evidence that was brought up for it.

I’ve never seen a thread so reflective of this meme:

“It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.”

Why are you so hung up on scrutinising Blow’s words to defend him, but then take the critic’s words with a broad general brush to dismiss them?

You even decry the lack of factual evidence in the critic’s case, but for some reason said nothing about Blow doing the same first.

That’s what looks silly to me. You’re not treating them the same.

Not scrutinizing Blow's words. One must be extremely careful when calling anyone fascist or similar labels. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused. It's obviously right to demand precision from the accuser, and to interpret whatever the accused said in good faith.

> One must be extremely careful when calling anyone fascist or similar labels.

Which I’m not doing.