That's the nefarious thing about the shift from outright slurs to more approachable concepts. The less obvious it is you're talking about a marginalized group, the more people you can rope in who don't realize it's a dog whistle. Soon it's hard to tell who's who from outside the growing and ever-angrier mob.

One day it's "jews" or "queers," the next it's "SJWs" and people who are just a little frustrated with modern discourse say "yeah!" and don't realize they're holding hands with an eager eugenicist. Pretty soon they've lost all their friends and have no idea how they got there, but now they don't seem to have anywhere else to go...

It's insidious. And now I have to wonder: would the person yelling about "SJWs" cheer as I'm marched into the gas chambers, or are they just frustrated about people who go overboard on Twitter? Probably the latter, but I can't really be sure. They don't even realize where they've positioned themselves.

edit:

>> "Being "adjacent" is often a good thing. A diplomat to a totalitarian country is voluntarily "tyrant adjacent" to pick an arbitrary example. Legitimate journalists (as opposed to propagandists) on the alt-right reporting beat would be likewise."

The diplomat and the journalist would know where they're positioned and be able to use that for their job. People who latch on to dogwhistles for unrelated frustrations typically do not and end up being used.

Pointing out the dogwhistle works for me and doesn't become guilt by association.

It's also worth noting that some folks bothered by social justice movements are bothered by the qualities they share with fascist ones: thought crime, lack of due process, blacklisting, doublespeak, etc.

It's possible actual allies againt oppression seem "evil adjacent" right now, but only because they aren't comfortable with fighting fire with fire, so to speak.

That's reasonable. The thing that makes me wary of people like that also make me wary of some people on my "side." A lot of them use language and tactics to attack people deemed evil by their in-group that they would criticize if used by the out-group.

If I were to pick a single litmus test for rejecting a group or movement, outgrouping might be it. It's self-deluding, unprincipled, and easily turns hateful. If there's no path toward reconciliation or peace, what are the remaining outcomes? Utter dominance? Fizzling out? Segregation? I expect more.

It depends on the movement. Are there jerks among people in the LGBTQ+ movement? Sure. Am I going to quit fighting for equality because of them? Nope. There are much worse people who would prefer it if I rolled over and died.