According to Wikipedia he has described himself as "a fiscal conservative and libertarian" whereas Wikipedia describes the Proud Boys as "far-right neo-fascist".

Vice doesn't seem to have any political allegiance in terms of US partisan politics but I think it's fair to describe them as socially progressive but otherwise (right) libertarian. They seem to be more "anti-establishment" than left or right.

Sex work is considered immoral under certain currently dominant religious doctrines. Mind you, even Christianity originally carved out a niche for sex work (Jesus certainly was more kind to those earning their living with sex work than to those earning it by exploiting the poor). Arguably this hangup in the modern day largely stems from Christianity and Islam however, which means it started less than 2000 years.

But morality doesn't tell you much because it literally comes down to religious doctrine, which only works for practitioners of the given faith and can still change over time depending on which interpretation of scripture is taken as canonical (e.g. few Christians getting in a huff over strip clubs would feel equally offended by mixed fabrics). This is why I didn't say "moral people" or "immoral things" but "good people" and "bad things".

Good and bad are value judgments that can be entirely arbitrary, i.e. what I might consider a good person is someone you might consider a bad person. This in turn can be based on a coherent system of ethics you follow or even something entirely inconsistent like most ethical systems that try to incorporate morality even when it conflicts with personal intuitive beliefs (this often leads to feelings of shame and guilt).

Ethics contrary to morality are usually defined in terms of harm and benefit. These terms are again subjective because they hinge on core beliefs, e.g. I think the goal should be for all people to have the ability to live a fulfilling life and not worry about having their basic needs met so my understanding of harm and benefit is defined in terms of whether something contributes to or detracts from that. Many people share core beliefs that are similar enough to be compatible with mine, so our shared system of ethics is "intersubjective" rather than subjective (i.e. entirely up to the individual) or "objective" (i.e. a universal truth claim about the universe).

So is sex work "good" under my system of ethics? No? Yes? Not really? Sex in itself is not inherently harmful so that doesn't make it bad. Transactional exchanges are not ideal but sex work is hardly unique in that. Arguably sex work is exploitative because most sex workers would prefer doing other work if they had the opportunity and weren't suffering from external pressures (often financial ones) but some sex workers genuinely enjoy their work as long as they know they can perform it in a safe environment. But that again isn't inherent in sex work itself but follows from the power/wealth imbalances and exploitation of the kyriarchy (i.e. sexism, capitalism, etc). So an instance of sex work may be bad but the act of performing sex work itself isn't necessarily even when the act of consuming sex work might be.

But speaking of missing the point, remember what I actually said: most people don't like it when bad things happen to good people even if they like it when bad things happen to bad people. "Bad things" in this case refers to circumstances that negatively affect the individual's ability in the above sense. "Bad people" referring to people whose actions negatively affect (everyone) else's ability in that sense.

Personally I think it's best for bad things not to happen to anyone if we can avoid it because enjoying the suffering of others is in itself detrimental to achieving said goals. But some level of schadenfreude seems to be a universal part of the human experience, so I still stand by what I said.

Of course things get messy when your ethics have to account for fairly intricate moral codes with tons of rules that boil down to being justified with "because God says so": good luck trying to incorporate "also you shouldn't wear mixed fabrics" into an ethical system you can apply day-to-day other than as yet another one-off you have to memorize because it doesn't affect anything in any meaningful way. I suppose that might be why almost everyone eventually started ignoring it. The question then only remains where you draw the line when it comes to just-so elements of your ethical system inherited from doctrinal morality: is makeup bad? Tattoos? Anal sex?

Or, of course, you can argue that the goal of your ethical system is to maintain The Natural Order. Except then you have to decide what that is supposed to be and why it puts you near the top rather than near the bottom (because these natural orders usually tend to form neat pyramid shapes for some reason). At which point it's usually easier to go back to religion because then at least someone has already written scripture you can point to.

I'm not from the US, we don't have high schools here and we don't have debate clubs. And I personally don't care the least about US moral judgements. No one outside the US (96% of the world population) cares about US moral judgements. I still have a trauma because as a kid I was forced to watch sitcoms with only black people and sitcoms with only white people, as if there were two planets (Golden Girls was neat though, Cosby didn't age that well - it was ok to rape women but not ok to kiss someone white on TV - how fu is that). But thanks for assuming. The world doesn't revolve around you, the US is not the center of the world. I know, shocking. Get over it. I'm just happy that the days of US culture imperialism and gun-point morale exports ends and no one is forced to care about your views in the future ("But we have atomic bombs!" Yes, heard that before recently). Iraq and Afghanistan showed the emporer wears no clothes. Sad thing is I probably need to learn Chinese, when the other bully enters the stage (there is always a bully) but at least it's a change + "Wandering Earth" wasn't that bad ... Humming 51st state

I'm not engaging in an abstract philosophical exercise with the goal of furthering humanity's understanding of morality or whatever it is you think we're doing.

I'm pointing out that spending time and energy trying to formulate perfectly nuanced universalizable mozaics of morality and slotting your positions into them is foolish.

An alternative is just having good judgement, and acting on it. Is that perfect? Can it be generalized to all cases? No! And it doesn't matter because sex workers should be able to get paid without dying and fascism is bad. You don't need that shit today take it to your debate club maybe they'll like it.

Therefore, progress is wrong.