This is no different than the error made when people say “Not all men” or “Not all white people” or whatever.
This is no different than the error made when people say “Not all men” or “Not all white people” or whatever.
It is different in this case.
The conversation didn't begin is a systematic critique. It began as an invitation to individuals, and the response was bigoted generalizations disguised as a systematic critique. If you respond to an appeal for inclusion with an attack, even tangential, you're being exclusive.
I understand. I just find it concerning that a post critiquing leftist spaces for not being accepting of religious folks is 95% critiques of religion and less than 5% actually welcoming.
You can say you're accepting of religious believers, but if you can't express that without adding a dozen asterisks, it's completely disengenuous.
Partially guilty. You're continuing the same problematic trend, but approaching the existing conversation with the most nuance. Whole thing was sort of derailed from the start.
It is different in this case.
The conversation didn't begin is a systematic critique. It began as an invitation to individuals, and the response was bigoted generalizations disguised as a systematic critique. If you respond to an appeal for inclusion with an attack, even tangential, you're being exclusive.
deleted by creator
I understand. I just find it concerning that a post critiquing leftist spaces for not being accepting of religious folks is 95% critiques of religion and less than 5% actually welcoming.
You can say you're accepting of religious believers, but if you can't express that without adding a dozen asterisks, it's completely disengenuous.
deleted by creator
Partially guilty. You're continuing the same problematic trend, but approaching the existing conversation with the most nuance. Whole thing was sort of derailed from the start.
deleted by creator
I didn’t get the impression that was the majority of comments
deleted by creator