4 ms·

I doubt a high percentage includes outright bigots and morons. The way I see it, it's opinions such as disagreement with ACAB movement, viewing looters as funda

I doubt a high percentage includes outright bigots and morons. The way I see it, it's opinions such as disagreement with ACAB movement, viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good, and other sensitive topics such as affirmative action damaging the "out of fashion" minorities such as Asian Americans. People are careful not to speak loudly about these opinions due to the fear that they're in the minority and will be branded as the enemy of the modern day "progressives".

mthoms 6y ago
>viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good Almost nobody would disagree with that statement but I'm sure you know that. Suggesting that the majority on the left (aka "progressives") support the looting is extremely disingenuous. It's plainly obvious what the real purpose of a comment like that is.
- seankimdesign 6y ago
  That's exactly my point. Almost nobody, when debating under mutual good will and faith, would have much to disagree with any of the topics I've touched on. These are sensible, human-centered talking points that have somehow become branded taboo because any attempt to discuss topics that might cast an ounce of blame away from the conservatives is being branded as wrongthink and as "derailing the conversation". It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book burning is anything but.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
the problem is the chilling effect even on the meta argument a recent example would be an IKEA HR firing a bigot in Poland people seem can't detach from the instance and see the bigger picture: workers have literally protested decades against getting terminated for opinion crimes, and now because in this instance society sides with the corporate it looks like we're immediately ready to throw away all our hard fought rights to let corporate fire someone for having the wrong opinions (especially since they could have just claimed the bigot word where harassment toward another employer and let justice so the work for them) but mention the bigger issue on a discussion and see how fast the topic moves back to the instance and the commenter thrown into the pit with the far right anti LGBT bigots keywords of his view on the instance.

mthoms 6y ago

>viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good Almost nobody would disagree with that statement but I'm sure you know that. Suggesting that the majority on the left (aka "progressives") support the looting is extremely disingenuous. It's plainly obvious what the real purpose of a comment like that is.

seankimdesign 6y ago
That's exactly my point. Almost nobody, when debating under mutual good will and faith, would have much to disagree with any of the topics I've touched on. These are sensible, human-centered talking points that have somehow become branded taboo because any attempt to discuss topics that might cast an ounce of blame away from the conservatives is being branded as wrongthink and as "derailing the conversation". It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book burning is anything but.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

the problem is the chilling effect even on the meta argument a recent example would be an IKEA HR firing a bigot in Poland people seem can't detach from the instance and see the bigger picture: workers have literally protested decades against getting terminated for opinion crimes, and now because in this instance society sides with the corporate it looks like we're immediately ready to throw away all our hard fought rights to let corporate fire someone for having the wrong opinions (especially since they could have just claimed the bigot word where harassment toward another employer and let justice so the work for them) but mention the bigger issue on a discussion and see how fast the topic moves back to the instance and the commenter thrown into the pit with the far right anti LGBT bigots keywords of his view on the instance.