The Dread Slender Gnome on Nostr: I don't completely agree. Asking "why" questions is good, I agree on that, because it ...

I don't completely agree.

Asking "why" questions is good, I agree on that, because it sows the seed of doubt. I don't think it's an open goal though, as people can still pivot to "but it's kind" or "but they're so downtrodden and oppressed".

However, I don't think stating outright that it's because they hate women, will work well. That's precisely because it's presenting a conclusion, and leaving out multiple deductive steps along the way. It's a lot easier to wave aside "they want to take women's rights away because they hate women", than a simple "but why..." question. It's also something a lot of people will happily dismiss as an extreme statement, which couldn't possibly be true, because a lot of people automatically think an extreme statement must be an exaggeration.

And fundamentally, I think a factual statement of actual real world outcomes is rhetorically (!) stronger than any spin about a poor oppressed minority.

This of course doesn't mean that I think others shouldn't assign motives to questionable actions. They're more than welcome to it.

It's just my personal opinion that it's a less effective rhetorical (!) strategy, and I'm personally not at all interested in motives when it comes to bad outcomes. Fundamentally, a bad outcome is always a bad outcome, no matter what the underlying motives were.