When "mere disagreement" is something like "I don't think you should have the same rights as me because your sexuality/gender/class/religion is different" then, uh, yes. E.g., depriving LGBTQ people marriage because of your "religious" beliefs is not a political view. This can be hard to understand if you come from a position where you've never had to deal with any issues like that. But for people in those groups, it's important to have a place where you can be with like-minded people and talk about those issues without someone taking over the conversation and making it about themselves and /their/ group.

"I don't think you should have the same rights as me because your sexuality/gender/class/religion is different"

Quite the opposite. Typically safe space warriors are demanding that people have different rights in public based on their genetics, not the same rights.

E.g. "You're a white man so shut up, I should have a special right to speak over you because of [XYZ]."

Here are some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK4MBzp5YwM

> When "mere disagreement" is something like "I don't think you should have the same rights as me because your sexuality/gender/class/religion is different" then, uh, yes.

Part of maturing is learning how to stand for one's ideas and beliefs, as well as learning how to deal with (bigoted) opposition to those. Isolating yourself, locking yourself in the echo chamber will make you unprepared for dialogue with those outside of it, or worse, will end with you radicalizing because you'll grow up with your standing never contested.

This is also going the other way. If you'll remove yourself from discourse, you will willfully marginalize yourself. How can local population know that LGBT people are living among them and are their friends/relatives/normal folk, if those people will lock themselves up in their safe spaces?

My favorite example when it comes to LGBT is polish activist turned politician, [Robert Biedroń](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Biedro%C5%84), who has spent life being vocal and visible activist for LGBT rights - extremely courageous feat in mostly catholic and conservatist Poland. The culmination of his work was gaining enough popular support to become mayor in 100k large city.

If this guy ran in my city, he'll get my vote. Even if I disagree with 90% of what he says because politically he always aligns himself with socialists and I'm moderate, I believe that what he does for making our society less bigoted is worth every support.

Now ask yourself, how many such Biedrońs will not come to be because they'll close themselves in their small worlds in fear of their feelings being hurt by some bigots?

If you disagree with 90% of his policies, but you vote for him anyway because of his LGBT activism, you're no better than racists could also disagree with 90% of a white man's policies, but still vote for them because their opponent was black.

I know you'll argue against that point, but I mention it not for you, but to put what you said into context for other readers.

Actually, I fail to see the point you are making. I'm arguing that people should be active in shaping popular discourse of their societies while honing and validating their opinions as they clash those with other opinions.

Is your argument "oh, but racists are also shaping discourse of their societes"?

like I said, I don't actually expect you to admit to such a horrible way of choosing who to vote for.

My post wasn't for you.

I totally agree. Well said.