It's hilariously ironic that the naysaying commenters here are all using exactly the same double-think described in the article. This begs the question: if you HAVE to resort to double-think in order to make a point, surely that means you don't have a lot going for you in terms of moral superiority anyway. If you have to deceive, deflect, use strawmen and other fallacies, manipulate, [or insert disingenuous argumentative strategy here] in order to have the upper hand, that means you couldn't have done it with the naked truth alone. And in the end, that's the only thing that truly matters.

Excellent article, says me, a woman (inb4 anyone accuses me of being a "white male" too). Oh, but wait. There's a special insult for women like me - internalised mysoginy. How delightfully gaslighting.