It’s not clear to me what OP’s object-level opinions are. I think you may be jumping to conclusions, and I think this conclusion-jumping is a good demonstration of the issue I’ve been describing in comments about word choice.
I can only tell what overall group of views you seem to have. the most predictive phrases:
as ill-defined as that term is
...
insofar as it makes sense to take about a single perspective, could be correct on all or almost all points. I don’t particularly want to litigate this right now, so I’ll just talk about what makes sense if you agree with me that a substantial proportion of claims made were false or exaggerated
in order to know what your object level views are, I would have to dig into what claims are false and true. and then,
It may be worth keeping in mind that it’s not like the social justice movement had no reasons for pursuing its goals so aggressively. It arose in a context in which sexual minorities were really treated as second-class citizens and had been subject to this, much as I hate to say this, oppression, for hundreds of years
which basically destroys any idea I had about what your views are. this is why I’ve been asking you to taboo the word: I really don’t know what you mean by it, there are conflicting possible meanings, and it seems like your agreements and disagreements with the group you’d describe with it are a lot more complex than just “thing bad”. It seems quite plausible to me that most policy positions someone who describes themselves as that word wouldn’t, when you get into it, disagree with you on very much at all—just on communication patterns and belief-indicator-signal packages. but the process of establishing that would probably also reveal that their beliefs aren’t the version that they seem on the surface, either.
It’s not clear to me what OP’s object-level opinions are. I think you may be jumping to conclusions, and I think this conclusion-jumping is a good demonstration of the issue I’ve been describing in comments about word choice.
Really? I haven’t exactly tried to hide my views here.
I can only tell what overall group of views you seem to have. the most predictive phrases:
...
in order to know what your object level views are, I would have to dig into what claims are false and true. and then,
which basically destroys any idea I had about what your views are. this is why I’ve been asking you to taboo the word: I really don’t know what you mean by it, there are conflicting possible meanings, and it seems like your agreements and disagreements with the group you’d describe with it are a lot more complex than just “thing bad”. It seems quite plausible to me that most policy positions someone who describes themselves as that word wouldn’t, when you get into it, disagree with you on very much at all—just on communication patterns and belief-indicator-signal packages. but the process of establishing that would probably also reveal that their beliefs aren’t the version that they seem on the surface, either.