3 ms·
I didn't just mean "people who aren't agreeing with me", but specifically people who disagree but who try and use some kind of censorship or shaming to silence
by guitarbill 10y ago
I didn't just mean "people who aren't agreeing with me", but specifically people who disagree but who try and use some kind of censorship or shaming to silence disagreements, instead of engaging in them. AFAIK, this is a common tactic of the mentioned group. (At the time of the edit, I had no replies but like -5. Not that it really matters.)
Disagreement is constructive at some level, and so it's a good thing in my opinion.
- greglindahl 10y agoWhat "mentioned group"? - I don't think many/any people think of themselves as SJWs now that it's pejorative and widely applied to people who never thought of themselves that way.
- tnone 10y agoIt's not so much one group as an ideology spread though media and academia, but some did try to take on the label sincerely in an attempt to reclaim its reputation (Guardian columnist Laurie Penny comes to mind). Regardless, columnists like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, industry professionals (see LambdaConf) and cling-ons (Shanley Kane, Adria Richards), activist students (like Emma Sulkowicz) and professors (like AW Peet) have sought their pound of blood from Professors (Jordan Peterson), scientists (Tim Hunt, Matt Taylor) and professionals (Brendan Eich). Accusations of fascism get thrown around, censorship is demanded, careers and families are targeted. Usually under the guise of morality and standing up to bullies, despite the timeline of events and what equal application of policy would say. They are excellent as seeing themselves on the right side of history, and they were the ones who pioneered the kind of mobbing and shaming techniques online that they consider to be harassment and violence when the shoe is on the other foot.