… you’re literally doing the same thing you’re accusing them of. Creating an arbitrary binary and than applying moral judgment to it.

Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works?

If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with.

Social justice tactics when it boils down to it are effective, but not very creative. Domain specific language is coopted and it’s definitions changed to mean what’s useful for activism. Goal is to redirect as much as possible of an organizations resources and attention towards the ideology instead of whatever it used to do.

I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.

It’s nonsense that you have to accept a premise to argue against it. That’s exactly what I did. On this website it’s expected that if you don’t have an argument, don’t make one.

With your assertion in mind that there is no issues with the activist technique. Do you denounce pedofilia? Do you denounce defrauding elderly relatives? See how this activist technique works, no answer is good and the question is directed at you as a potential complicit person, and using it is in my opinion a sure sign of a worse character than what I’d like to engage with.

Please point out where I asserted there are no issues with activist techniques. As far as I can remember, all I've done is point out that you constructed an arbitrary binary specifically to decry the creation of arbitrary binaries.

I then called your hair a bird.

> Please point out where I asserted there are no issues with activist techniques.

Refer to the comment I replied to where you argue "No one was calling anyone a white supremecist", and then justified this conclusion by stating the social justice redefinition of the colloquial term:

> No one was calling anyone a white supremecist in the conversation. They were likely talking about white supremacy as a cultural and political force in the context of how the policy could perpetrate it.

To your other statement:

> all I've done is point out that you constructed an arbitrary binary specifically to decry the creation of arbitrary binaries.

There are many different types of individual viewpoints and behaviors, so a critique of or an unwillingness to accept a type of behavior normally means that you have tons of others you accept. Disagreeing being a binary choice is a social justice dogma that model the world very badly.