[npstr]

> it’s important to note that they are to the end of positive social change

The end does not justify the means. Name me one single objectively bad political movement which internally thought of themselves as bad or negative. There isn't one. They all claim and for the largest part of their membership believe to serve the greater good. Therefore I find this argument of the author extremely weak. Surely they can come up with some less naive arguments?

[femiagbabiaka]

To move away from sophistry and towards some concrete understanding, which of the sample books they provided for that blurb would you say is "true negative"? Others which aren't explicitly highlighted would also be acceptable.

- Enough! 20 Protesters Who Changed America

- Gays and Mental Health: Fighting Depression, Saying No to Suicide

- I am Martin Luther King, Jr.

- Peaceful Fights for Equal Rights

- Tomorrow Will Be Different: Love, Loss, and the Fight for Trans Equality

[npstr]

I did not communicate my point well enough. I'm sure a lot of these "bans" are not well justified, and good arguments can be found against them. Why use something weak like "we are the good guys and the ends justify the means"?

[femiagbabiaka]

I see, I misunderstood the point you were making, apologies. I agree, I think that's one of the weaker points of the article. The data itself makes a much stronger case.