> people read the posted sign or subtly got the funny vibe
Or the bigoted meme? It's a great argument; you might consider exactly which point it's a great argument in favor of.
I am amazingly uninterested in arguments for why it's important to support racism and sexism, or in attempts to paint racists and sexists as an oppressed group that needs protection, or in attempts to equate freedom of association as equivalent to violence, or in attempts to call it "your particular ideas of what's right and wrong". Enjoy beating up that strawman as long as you like, but it has little to do with any actual position I'm advocating.
I am amazingly uninterested in "aguments" where you put words in other people's mouths. Where do I support racism and sexism? Please provide a quote. (Big fail for you here!) As it so happens, I'm a liberal non-heterosexual brown person. Violence is wrong, no less so if it's done against vile, violent people. Coercion is wrong, even if it's done against people I dislike. The suppression of free speech is wrong, no matter who is talking.
in attempts to equate freedom of association as equivalent to violence
It's certainly not equivalent to violence. However, it's still fake and crappy if you're just interested in getting your way, and have reduced certain other human beings in your mind to some status where their consensuality doesn't matter. That's the whole reason why democracy is the best form of government we have so far: it respects consensuality the best out of every other system we've tried.
"your particular ideas of what's right and wrong". Enjoy beating up that strawman as long as you like, but it has little to do with any actual position I'm advocating.
So your ideas of "social justice" are better than everyone else's? You claim to have some sort of line to "the truth?" A close friend of mine received some sort of award and several hundred dollars for her work in social justice, and she agrees with much of what I have said.
You said yourself in this very discussion that you want "your side" to infiltrate all of the organizations and force the certain people you think are "bad" because they disagree with you. You want society to run in this way, and even if it just succeeds in creating pockets of people who think like you, that's great. Well, that's exactly what you said, and my position is precisely this: Thinking this way is crappy and it's emotionally dishonest. It creates an oppressive fake "consensus," and it convinces absolutely no one. The kind of society it would create would be just as truly about "justice" as the Christian religion dominated society of the 19th century was truly about "Christian values" -- only on the surface! This is my position, and exactly this. The only "straw-manning" that's been done has been yours. You are the one philosophically advocating coercion. Honestly, does the thought of coercing all of those horrible people to leave groups not strike you as righteous vengeance? Are you honestly free of hate of people in your heart?
I agree with many of your political aims, but be honest with yourself: Your position is weak someplace, and thus you have turned away from convincing and towards coercion.
Having found that much of the modern world has quite effective protections for free speech and free association, authoritarians have learned this "one weird trick" to hide their activities. Here's the dishonest trick: Just because it's not in the set of rules enforced by city, county, state, and federal officials, then it's not censorship. That's the same as saying that anything you do is OK, so long as it's not against the letter of the law somewhere.
The whole point of free speech is to prevent authority from chilling dissent and coercing fake-agreement through fear and power. How does it matter if that sort of thing is happening through non-government organizations? Our country and most of the western world has a long history of oppressing groups largely through such non-government oppression. The manner in which homosexuals were oppressed is almost the same manner in which you would like your political views enforced. Do you know what people used to say about this? "You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it."
You shouldn't go to jail for it, but you can't demand that other people like it.
There were laws against homosexuality in the western world, but the societal enforcement mechanisms were operating with far more frequency in the 20th century. There were laws suppressing black people, but the instances of societal enforcement mechanisms were far more frequent than arrests. Far more people read the posted sign or subtly got the funny vibe than were arrested. In many places where there were no specific laws against being Jewish, there were many, many instances of people being excluded from the best connected clubs and social circles on this basis. What you want are these kinds of societal enforcements operating, but on the basis of your particular ideas of what's right and wrong. So long as no one is being injured or killed, and no state "monopolizers of violence" are at play, then it's okay.
It's not okay. If you are trying to force instead of convince then you are being a crappy, oppressive person. History is full of such people, most of whom thought they were doing right. In the same way, history is full of crappy violence, committed by people who thought they were fighting for justice. Thankfully, civilization has made progress, and we are now in the process of groups giving up violence as a means of enforcing their will. Similarly, we as a civilization are better understanding that groups of people using other forms of societal pressure to enforce their will short of violence are also oppressive. What you are advocating is that same kind of crappy non-consensual illusion of agreement, and justifying it because governments aren't doing it, and because in your mind, it's "might for right."
Convince, not force. Consensuality should be at the core of any 21st century intellectual's morality, and true consensuality is never begrudging.