Wow. This comment is a neat microcosm of what's wrong with modern "progressive" discourse. Let's take a look: • it starts with a personal attack—apparently giv

Wow. This comment is a neat microcosm of what's wrong with modern "progressive" discourse. Let's take a look: • it starts with a personal attack—apparently giving any credence to conservatives is embarrassing? • it completley ignores the underlying principles of individually liberty • in fact, it completely steamrolls individual concerns in favor of abstract social groups • it's unabashedly populist: instead of making a real argument, it's about "not embarrassing ourselves" • it implicitly inserts the speaker as a defender for some nebulous "marginalized" groups, with no real basis Of course, in this case, the marginalized groups are using social and legal pressure to suppress any dissent. Which isn't a product of being marginalized—and can't be justified by it either. But I guess your views are so obviously correct that we shouldn't countenance any disagreement at all. Long on pathos, long on populism and short on substance. And yet it's all too indicative of much of the discussion I hear in Berkeley, at the very least. (Fancy that.) It's also disturbingly unwilling to consider any contrary opinions. Apparently that would be letting someone (other than you, of course!) "set the narrative". The scariest thing is that this is exactly the sort of reasoning used to justify taking away people's rights. And, at least for now, it seems to be working. I can't even tell if you're being entirely serious, or I'm just missing the parody and tearing down a straw man.