> There does seem to be a quasi-religious aspect to the social justice movement. I consider it a feature rather than a bug. Just be glad it's not a real inquisition. If you think this is bad...

When people lose their jobs, their ability to feed their family, and their ability to provide for their future... all because someone generated pixels that made the faithful squeamish...

Yes, that is a de facto inquisition.

> Hollywood Example

You loosely defined professions and roles of the Hollywood "institution" and still didn't name any individuals. And you left out the cleaning crews, the assistant producers, the politicians who get tax revenue from Hollywood productions, the recipients of social welfare programs from those tax dollars, the cocaine dealers for those amazing Hollywood parties, the cloud datacenters that distribute the movies, and the lumberjacks who cut down the trees to produce the large billboards. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on who actually makes up the Hollywood "institution".

Those incidious lumberjacks. They must be punished because insitutioniness!

You attempt to speak of the difficulty to deliniate blame, but in reality, you are only speaking in terms of pragmatic resource expenditure. If there was a cheap and easy way to punish the hundreds of millions of people consuming the output of the Hollywood "institution", you'd absolutely do it with the ease of which you silence individuals via flagging and down votes! I don't doubt that for a second. But since not even the mighty social justice crusade has such power, they have to keep the rhetoric and the strategies more pragmatic. Which means the lines YOU are INDIVIDUALLY using to determine who is and is not part of the "institution" is only as objective as your ability to punish effectively. You simply target whoever you can reach and then justify it as collateral damage.

> What about the institution of slavery? Is everyone that profited from slavery a part of the institution? If so, you're back at "it's no one's fault". If not, you're ultimately being arbitrary as to who is contributing to an institution.

I state it again: How many people can your religion punish at the same time? If you can effectively punish hundreds of millions of people, then I'm very sure you'd happily do so. But since you can't, you'll go after whatever you can afford... for the cause, you understand.

> Imagine if I had to do this for everything you bring up in your long posts

Oh, the horror of exchanging perspectives. You'll do anything to preserve the free hand you need shift who is an isn't part of an institution. Punishment is more important than anything else, and we can't let something a rigid as a precise category get in the way, can we?

In reality, your enemy is whoever you can afford to go after at that moment in time. That's the actual precise answer you are actually saying.

> Now that I've spilled all these words on one topic, I find myself with little left in the tank for the rest of your points. Now I shall silence and marginalize and conduct a crusade against you by not replying to any of your future posts. Think about that for a moment.

I've given it exactly one moment and I have concluded that you either need a bigger tank or more experience with handling perspectives that you don't agree with.

user:	sighsighsigh
created:	January 17, 2015
karma:	-25