Not Victor Godwin

𝗡𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗲𝗽𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 “𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻” 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀: 1. Megan Basham (@megbasham) lies. She repeatedly claims that I said it was unfair for her, as a large account, to respond to smaller accounts and that this was one of my main arguments against her. Not once in a single post was that ever my point. This pattern, however, is something she has done to almost everyone in this debate so far: Claiming that a person said something they never said in order to use that empty, absurd accusation to discredit the entire person and their arguments. The queen of strawmanning strikes again. She also says it's mainly about the op issue. That was one part out of nine, but she deliberately ignores the rest. [10, 13, 19, 35 ,48] 2. Megan lies again: She claims that nobody ever shows her where she said anything cruel, nasty, or hateful when she asks. In Example 2 of the series, I posted more than 40 of her comments from this category. But the pattern is already familiar: She asks for answers that have already been given, only to ignore them and pretend that the other side is incapable of providing them. [23, 24, 53] 3. She lies once more: She says she unblocks people when she responds so they can reply. Not long ago, she left a comment under one of my posts (calling me a cultist) without me being able to respond because the block was still in place. And yesterday, she left almost ten comments under my post without removing the block, so I only saw the comments later and once again couldn't respond directly. She may change her strategy now and in the future, but it's a lie to claim that things were different until now. [16, 26, 55] 4. She continues to demand that ops must be proven. Her argument: Without proof, you are not allowed to even suggest it as a suspicion. I already addressed this in more detail in my last post. I still find it interesting, though, that she has decided to claim that there are no coordinated campaigns against Trump administration members like Susie Wiles, etc. So that's her talking point: Everyone who perceives these attacks as coordinated rather than purely organic is damaging the conservative coalition. NOT those who are attacking these people. The pattern seems familiar to me: At NatCon, too, the problem wasn't the antisemitic narratives in the speeches but those who called them out. [1, 13, 15, 28, 29] 5. Megan defends Jack Posobiec. So, to summarize, Tucker was nice to her, she also finds Tucker and Fuentes extremely charismatic, entertaining, and funny, she has a soft spot for Milo, and she says Posobiec isn't being paid and that the alleged Qatar link is stupid. Again, it's interesting which kind of moral rot she finds kind words and defenses for. [40] 6. She once again tries to involve big names through false representations: Joel Berry @JoelWBerry and Frank McCormick @CBHeresy this time. [30, 44] 7. She once again plays the innocent victim, unjustifiably: No, she did not let the subject rest. She repeatedly subtweeted @DefiyantlyFree, @ConceptualJames, and @SovMichael, even when the other side had dropped the subject. [3, 36] 8. She, just like her entire political camp, consistently downplays the danger posed by Groypers, which amounts to enabling the consequences of the damage caused by this group when done as systematically as her camp does. [41] 9. The criticism directed at me includes that I am obsessed: To that, all I can say is YES, I AM. I'm a small account. I read everything, I repost some things, but I consciously focus my posts and comments on just one particular topic for days or weeks at a time. I'm too small to talk about 50 things simultaneously, 49 of which I myself even consider more important. But this is how I think, and that's not going to change: In political debates, I often try not to say more of the same. Instead, when I see an angle that receives too little or no attention at all, I take on that subject and focus on it. That's my modest attempt to provide some added value and make a contribution of my own. So, for example, I wrote two of the articles criticizing the NatCon speeches because nobody else would do it. I did this Megan analysis because nobody else would do it. So yes, I'm obsessed, hyperfocused, selectively focused on one topic for a period of time, I definitely need a better hobby, etc. YOU'RE ALL RIGHT about everything, but for now, all of this is simply going to stay the way it is. [12, 16] 10. And just for the record (again): I'm not a James Lindsay sock puppet or burner account. Just give a woman enough credit to believe that she's capable of thinking her own thoughts and writing her own texts. [12] 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿.