No, it’s not inherently a fallacy. Case in point, the Patriot Act and everything that followed.

Yes, it can be used to support idiotic arguments like that legalizing gay marriage will lead to beastiality, or anything that Megan McArdle will use it to support, but it shouldn’t be automatically dismissed as an invalid concern.

That’s a question you’d only ask if you haven’t read any of her writing…

Might I suggest starting with her pieces on The Handmaid’s Tale, the Grenfell Tower Fire, and anything to do with kitchenware.

Megan is a national treasure.

You can always count on her to selflessly use her to name to publish the most absurdly dog shit arguments to defend corporations and the powerful.

She’s also pretty dumb.

That’s not what I said, but I love how you misquoted me in the framework of your own personal warped version of reality.

Read the subtext of the article. This location was obviously selected for a politically motivated reason, and I’d be interested to know what that was i.e. was it a general show of power (boring), or was it some hyper specific personal conflict with a prominent member of the club and a CCP party member (interesting).

That doesn’t mean the intent behind the CCP policy isn’t good, well intentioned, or positive. But that’s not surprising to me, so it’s not very interesting. What drove the politics behind the decision to raze a Golf Course to spite HK elite, is very interesting, at least to me.

While I loathe golf courses and am always happy to take the piss out of the “elites”, this feels like something more.

This might just be the CCP flexing political power over Hong Kong in general, but I’d be curious to see what the primary motivation behind this decision was. Obviously it wasn’t building public housing, that’s just a good cover story with a positive side effect.