@capricorn-child continued from here but this post is getting long and this is more general than this one particular post and about these kind of posts, not that exact one – all of them. Though doing this it is not my intention to make it more personal to you cause it isn’t really, but this could come across as that sorry :/. Also not solely for your reading (though might end up being idk how many people actually read my tumblr – I mean you don’t actually have to read it either but you know)

The thing is it’s 100% not the actual content of the arguments made in these kinds of posts what I have an issue with its how they are used – that’s why it’s so insidious tbh it’s why they are effective with what they actually do achieve and it’s why I find them incredibly suspicious.

These points pop up when people want to suppress the idea they might be being kind of shitty or bigoted. Whether that’s suppressing the idea in other people or their own head cause they don’t want to examine themselves like that – so they find reasons why it doesn’t apply.

These type of posts are used to water down what people’s points actually are. Usually, this is a point about bigotry being misconstrued as being about something it makes sense to argue against. Like saying its about people not wanting to explore difficult topics or wanting ideological purity (and man, do I apparently have a lot of issues with ideological purity I’m not going to write out here cause this is going to be long enough) or it being about ships or not liking a certain genre of fic for like fandom space tumblr examples. When that isn’t what anyone you disagree with is actually saying – but those are easier things for people to dismiss so they pretend it is. Or they are used to attack how people raise the point instead of what the point itself is or attack the idea of censorship in general when that isn’t what’s happening.

I don’t have the right side menu to insert a cut for length for some reason but this is where I would do it if tumblr worked properly…

Okay this should work now

The argument in the post is always something a lot of people can get behind that’s why it’s an effective method to shut down someone disagreeing with you. Like yeah hypothetical person your right you should be able to write X genre or X topic but no ones arguing you can’t they are asking you to not write those topics and genres or any other ones while also being super racist or while romanticising awful stuff etc etc. People are choosing hills to die on with these posts that aren’t actually things people have a problem with because that way their argument looks reasonable (- not that people don’t also straight up argue for the right to be racist if they want to be but being that direct is less common). The point people are making is good but it’s not the actual issue at hand a lot of the time.

Also: To present a platform of arguing against silencing tactics then pretend that telling someone their argument is something different to what it is or only considering a point if it’s presented to you in an ‘acceptable’ way aren’t also silencing tactics that also create that toxicity doesn’t really work. – someone disagreeing doesn’t give them the right to be vile to you, sure, but them being vile doesn’t mean they can’t possibly have a point either.

People use this language as a defense when it’s pointed out to them that something they’ve done is bigoted or otherwise not great as a method to hide their head in the sand and shut down the people pointing it out because there are way too many people more invested in not being called a bigot than not being one so they try and make it so calling someone [type of bigotry] isn’t a thing anyone can do on the basis of it being ‘too mean’ cause then they never have to face up to it in themselves. – also definitely as much a silencing tactic

This isn’t an argument against the idea of ideological purity its a different definition of what is purity. Thus has the same issues as any other form of ideological purity just a different ideology.

Recentring this conversation around the hurt feelings of those being challenged on ideas is not new. It’s not revolutionary thought or some idea that makes you more high-minded and above it all than other people. It’s business as usual. And because certain groups hurt feelings are always thought of as more important than the opinions, viewpoints,  and feelings of those affected by whatever issue it is being discussed it’s reinforcing the status quo.

I agree with you on the surface that is what the post is talking about – I know that I knew that when I wrote the first post. But at the same time, it’s very much not about that and I’m not nieve enough to take it at face value as it is a totally recycled argument we hear all the time.

TL:DR just read the italicized bits that’s the gist