[dangus]

I’m speaking purely from the context of the US, and I wouldn’t want to shove our terminology down anyone else’s throat. That said, the US does drive a lot of software culture since it’s the industry epicenter, so I guess it’s unavoidable at some point.

Maybe I could have used less politically-charged language, but in my eyes it was necessary to surface the connection. I think that in the US, a very specific political group rallies around opposition to social justice, and that group has a tendency to try and hide their underlying motivations (e.g., using dogwhistling).

[anon373839]

> I think that in the US, a very specific political group rallies around opposition to social justice, and that group has a tendency to try and hide their underlying motivations (e.g., using dogwhistling).

Talk about dog whistling! Why don’t you actually say what you mean: “I think people who disagree with my beliefs are unworthy and their opinions don’t count.”

[dangus]

You’re basically headed straight to the tolerance paradox.

If you disagree with my desire to not harm others, the inverse is that you want to harm others. No, that opinion doesn’t count, and is unworthy. My intolerance of that opinion is not hypocrisy.

[anon373839]

This has nothing to do with the tolerance paradox.

The comment tried to smear opponents of the social justice movement as dog-whistling bigots. But the social justice movement is not, in many people’s very legitimate opinions, the right way to achieve fairness. It also doesn’t enjoy the kind of broad consensus its proponents like to pretend they have.