For sure, and I hope nobody thinks that well-intended criticism of identity politics is in any way dismissing the need for passionate activist groups, or demeaning their hard work. The problem becomes when their messages are considered immune from criticism because of PC and identity politics. Take the immediate and apparently acceptable response to many people, including some people of color, who say "All Lives Matter" in response.

Why is it it considered acceptable, even appropriate to immediately start shaming these people, why call people who disagree racist and worse? Why isn't the preferred response to All Lives Matter, "yes, of course, but.... *educate*" And why is anyone who still disagrees or who has the gall to stand up for police (many who have been killed as well) tagged as white supremacists for, you know, arguing and showing concern?

The author glazes over the bad outcomes:

But criticism is exactly what is happening now, criticism of what has gone wrong. The author believes identity politics is a good remedy to counter identity politics, and I just think it's apparent that more gasoline simply burns things hotter and faster.

Yes.

Fabulous videos...subbed

MaKe moar now please

I'd guess that most progressive activists think this. I appreciate that you don't view it that way yourself, but people who go to a protest are trying to send a message. When critics focus on bad-behavior and fringe issues, that message gets muddled. Political organizers pay attention to and try to minimize these distractions, but these kind of events are often decentralized and there often isn't much they can do. So those who are sympathetic to the message emphasize the message and minimize distractions and those who aren't emphasize the bad behavior and fringe statements.

I agree that activists should generally try to explain their views or what they are protesting and should be willing to listen to criticism of their views.

Politrek V - The Final Frontier

TS is alive and well and posting in SMP. All you peeps might want to stop by there if you want to chill with Him.

Yes, please do articulate who is classified as a vulnerable group and why they deserve special treatment. I think youre one of few on the left that actually attempts to articulate a pov but even then, when things get uncomfortable, there seems to be a resort to cognitive dissonance. Making a complete thought and staying on topic would be a nice change from the left. As a moderator, you could set an example here
This is the danger. Declare trans as special snowflakes that need special treatment. Then their ideas and the criticism of them needs to be treated differently. Then when you dont go along with their agenda youre being evil, bigoted, or insensitive to the special snowflakes. Is that a formula for the best ideas winning? Is attacking those that dont want to go along with their agenda for hate crimes good idea?

People really don't understand the value of free speech around here. Its not just a right, its a mechanism. With out a free market of ideas competing, how do you expect the best ideas to win? The people who control the narrative win and they also determine who is the side conducting hate speech

You also can see jordan peterson speak on this topic specifically, it's definitely worth watching and thinking about

I dont know much about molyneux except that hes controversial but this is a very well thought out and articulated position on free speech

"Vulnerable groups" are offended to the point of being murderous over cartoons. This mentality has direct and indirect consequences that are extremely toxic and infringe on both free speech and free expression. It leads to oppression and violence. How do you expect overcome this by treating them as vulnerable snowflakes? You want to restrict the free speech of people criticizing the groups destroying free speech and free expression. Its absurd. Arguing is an alternative to violence, thats why stripping free speech instead of argument or debate always accelerates the escalation to violence. We have just seen multiple instances on campus. Nobody wanted to debate the speakers or offer counter speeches, they wanted to shut the speeches down and that created almost instantaneous violence

lol molyneux

lolyneux if you will

Ive asked this before but what golden age are you people imagining when you imagine employees being able to say whatever the **** they want on the job?

Chez you moved the post and promised an explanation. I think its important you clarify this as its kind at the core of how you moderate political discussion yet it contradicts some of the most valuable aspects of free speech. I dont think shifting this topic over to this particular thread was a good idea and perhaps is an indication of completely missing the plot

Let me guess - he's wiping the floor with you and you need help, right?

Lol.

Chez, I'm being serious here, are Koreans a vulnerable group? We are a minority, and I'm currently under verbal assault by a bunch of white people.

Help me.

That has very little to do with you being Korean.

Firstly my apologies for not getting back to you further although I do think I've addressed most of it.

I moved it from the moderation thread because I've explained the rules and the reason for them. I accept the PC approach isn't perfect so discussing the pros and cons seemed best served here. Where do you think it should be? we have a free speech thread but some rules in Pv7.0 isn't a free speech issue.

Vulnerable groups do not 'deserve' special treatment. It's about recognising that some people are being harmed simply because of how the group is perceived/treated and that they dont deserve it.

We identify groups where individuals tend to suffer from prejudice, discrimination and hatred simply because they are a member of that group. On top of the usual politics of changes in laws and practices, PC is about avoiding the reinforcement of prejudice and hatred. Many of us will go further and actively seek to reduce the prejudice and hatred - that's a very good thing imo but it's not required here whereas making the effort to be PC is.

PC doesn't protect an individual just because they are a member of a vulnerable group. If you are think you are being treated unfairly because you are Korean then you might have a case.

Sorry chez, I was just joking and hoped you'd get a laugh out of it.

Wow I had no idea wil was Korean.

Astonishing.

Did you expect him to break out his Tae Kwan Doe skillz?

Racist

You mean wacist!

Exactly.

The incredible evils of PC is mocking the common denial of racism while it's happening while having that identified and shared openly.

Or is that not PC- telling it like it is?

Separating the joke complaints from the serious ones is hard sometimes.

Only on full moons and 2nd Tuesdays.