Well I don’t want to continue this longer than we have to as we’re mostly talking at each other by this point. So happy to “disagree” I guess.

But in the interests of trying to resolve this … some questions:

1. Could someone not have appreciated the message or core of the speech in the moment of watching the film without in anyway supporting or defending Mattel?
2. Is it not more likely that such a person would be more likely to be female than male?
3. If 2, then is any reductionism of the significance of the speech not more likely to come from a male however much of a point they have?
4. More broadly, given your application of “ad hominem” as a “logical fallacy”, how could any argument against patriarchy have ever been made by women, or any argument against a hegemony made by the oppressed, without falling foul of the ad hominem “fallacy”?

In the end, all I’ve been saying to you is “yes, but there can still be a kernel of truth in this that resonated with people but which didn’t resonate with you perhaps because of your different perspective”.

To reject that as a reality or valid or relevant human behaviour strikes me as an argument that’s somewhere between naive and insensitive, especially given that the purplewashing point is not in question at all.

Anyway, all the best and genuinely thanks for the chat … I believe neither of us got too heated and kept it civil!