lmn
33
89
lmn has not written any posts yet.
In this approach, you concede a need to at least occasionally intervene in a particular kind of dispute such as banning the white supremacists
Another problem with this is what does one mean by "white supremacists"? The definition used by the people who most advocate banning them tends to include anyone who believes in certain statements about the differences between races that are almost certainly true. For example, how race correlates with IQ. This is especially a problem for a forum that wants to be "rational".
You seem to be conflating quantity and quality.
To mention the elephant in the living room, I wonder if the increasingly broken wikipedia mod culture has something to do with this.
What about ostensibly apolitical posts that nonetheless use hot button issues as examples?
What about situations where a hot button issue comes up in the context of discussion?
Here is Vox Day explicitly arguing that if conservatives can be fired for expressing their opinions, so should NFL player for disrespecting the flag.
We all know that the NFL wouldn't hesitate to act if players started throwing Nazi salutes; they already come down hard on the expression of any opinion that is negative about homosexuality.
The Rubicon has been decisively crossed, so it's time to start cracking down on "speech" Americans don't like.
Always play by the rules that are actually in place, not by the rules that you wish were in place.
This certainly seems rather accusatory, seeing as (as far as I know) Ozy doesn't actually support doxxing random social media users and is certainly not responsible for the actions of the entire SJ movement.
Except the OP is presented as an arguments against the elements of SJ that would oppose it.
Ozy's claim here, as far as I can tell, is that, even if people on Our Side stopped doing bad things, that wouldn't automatically cause people on The Other Side to stop doing bad things. Do you actually think that Ozy is wrong about this, or do you only disagree that the evidence they present is sufficient?
Yes, it's a lot easier to maintain
The second is a rather touching faith in the ability of people's virtuous behavior to influence their political opponents.
This may be true but vicous behaviour will encourage political oponents to retaliate in kind. It's called tit-for-tat and this article suggests you don't understand it.
Now, if it happened that my actions had any influence whatsoever over the behavior of r/TumblrInAction, that would be great. I don't screenshot random tumblr users and mock them in front of an audience of over three hundred thousand people,
Maybe you personally don't but the SJ movement you seem to support certainly does that to random social media users and not just mocks them but goes after them
Um, the whole point of SJ usage is to win arguments through intimidation, thus this would be conterproductive.
"intersectional" strikes me as an example of an intentionally confusing term, at least I've never been able to figure out a meaning beyond "a word people throw into arguments to make it a norm violation to notice that said arguments make no sense".
(c) whether the information on the page is accurate.
Except not all topics and not all information are of equal interest to people.