2 ms·

Yeah that's a good point, although, that involves the threat of violence. What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation "and when someone does sa

Yeah that's a good point, although, that involves the threat of violence. What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation "and when someone does say something, they are met with a wave of sophisticated terminology backed by academic credentials that they have no way of parsing." Those both aren't violence, but I guess you can say the first one is bullying people into not speaking. However, I believe the only examples that the author provided of that was the firing of James Damore and the survey of Silicon Valley employees that showed conservatives are afraid to be themselves and reports in the survey that they are being purged from companies like Apple. I'd say that in a free market you can hire and fire anyone you like at your business. So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support.

stcredzero 9y ago
Yeah that's a good point, although, that involves the threat of violence. The threat of losing your job, or effectively being "un-personed" in your career isn't so great. That's basically the level of coercion which Harvey Weinstein stooped to. What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation It's moral condemnation in bad faith. If there were principles at stake, then there would be room for discourse. This isn't that. It's coercion in the interest of power. So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support. By actors in bad faith. It's much like democracies that elect governments that end up being totalitarian or theocratic. Short circuiting free speech itself is fundamentally the ultimate form of bad faith in a democracy. That one side thinks such a thing is in reach is a sign that they wish to shut down dissent and act as authoritarians. It was true of the right in the 60's. It's true now of the left in the 20-teens.

stcredzero 9y ago

Yeah that's a good point, although, that involves the threat of violence. The threat of losing your job, or effectively being "un-personed" in your career isn't so great. That's basically the level of coercion which Harvey Weinstein stooped to. What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation It's moral condemnation in bad faith. If there were principles at stake, then there would be room for discourse. This isn't that. It's coercion in the interest of power. So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support. By actors in bad faith. It's much like democracies that elect governments that end up being totalitarian or theocratic. Short circuiting free speech itself is fundamentally the ultimate form of bad faith in a democracy. That one side thinks such a thing is in reach is a sign that they wish to shut down dissent and act as authoritarians. It was true of the right in the 60's. It's true now of the left in the 20-teens.