> "Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism.
No, it doesn't.
It means statements that they perceive as having those qualities.
And that perception is itself politically driven.
No, it doesn't.
It means statements that they perceive as having those qualities.
And that perception is itself politically driven.
> > "Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism.
> No, it doesn't.
It literally and obviously does. The people making statements about his statements are the ones who decide what they mean with their statements about his statements. That is plainly obvious and doesn't need to be explained.
> And that perception is itself politically driven.
What I see is politically-driven dismissal of others' perspectives, such as by saying "politics they disagree with" instead of addressing the reasons for the disagreement.
There is nothing to discuss. I am summarizing past discussions that already concluded, which I have not shown here and you presumably have not seen. (Hint: the overwhelming majority of the disagreement I have in mind has nothing to do with DHH or Omarchy.)
When I propose that someone else's reasons for disagreement are not based in objective fact but in their subjective assessment of the evidence, that is simply me disagreeing with that assessment. I am equally entitled to disagree with them as they are with me. There is no good reason for you, as a third party, to be enraged by this or to question my good faith.
> The people making statements about his statements are the ones who decide what they mean with their statements about his statements.
They can mean whatever they want. However, this discussion is about "people [who] label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems." in the abstract. To say that "'politics they disagree with' means XYZ", as a third party, is not an observation about what someone else intended to community. It's a claim being made about the supposed objective nature of whatever was disagreed with; and it's simply not possible to evidence that in general.
I am sharing my personal experience that, generally speaking, when people call someone else a racist etc. due to expressed political views, very commonly the expressed political views do not reasonably evidence racism.
That is exactly the same thing. If you acknowledge that they perceive a statement to be racist then you agree that racism is what they mean.
> that perception is itself politically driven.
Isn't everyone's ?
The point is that them thinking something is racist doesn't make it racist.
But even if they are wrong, their argument is still that racism is unethical. You can't correct a misinterpretation by another misinterpretation.