I want to characterize this as a “motte and bailey” response but I think it’s more complicated than that. I’m sure a lot of people who are sympathetic to the so

I want to characterize this as a “motte and bailey” response but I think it’s more complicated than that. I’m sure a lot of people who are sympathetic to the social justice movement don’t actually believe or are exposed to the more radical ideas like this, but the core of the movement absolutely operates this way. For example, most of the rationale for regulating “hate speech” explicitly conflates “hate speech” with violence; meanwhile, non-hateful dissent with the ideology is simultaneously characterized as “hate speech”, thus transitively conflating political disagreement with violence.