That's not from the sport concept, it's a rhetorical trick of the Left. Everything they believe in is inherently apolitical. Everything you believe in is injecting hostile politics of hate.
This is easily demonstrated by Tim Pool's old criticism of Twitter. A misgendering policy is an inherently political rule and is being inherently left-wing politically. A Conservative thinks inherently that calling a transwoman a woman is, by definition, misgendering because they aren't using the gender they are born as. The head of Twitter at the time didn't really understand the concept because his ideological blinders were so tight he never realized that there was a dispute regarding the definition of gender; which caused them to have an inherent left-wing bias.
This is the same reason they scream about how the right-wing is trying to fight a divisive culture war, while they carpet-bomb right-wing people in the culture war they started.
The head of Twitter at the time didn't really understand the concept because his ideological blinders were so tight he never realized that there was a dispute regarding the definition of gender; which caused them to have an inherent left-wing bias.
I don’t believe that this was a good faith mistake.
I've seen intelligent and not very political people in science and medical fields make blanket statements about "Oh I wish they wouldn't make this a political issue. This should be common sense!" when it comes to something in their area of expertise. Of course due to the nature of left-wing media dominance of the narrative, these people also usually fail to see exactly who is making a particular issue political. They think there's some right-wing influence network pushing reactionary ideas instead of just normal people voicing their concerns. I try to explain that something being political or not has nothing to do with truth or the influence of dishonest actors. It's simply: "Do you think X?" "Well I disagree, and I'll only vote for politicians that agree with me."
So literally everything could be political. The problem here is really the influence of the state and that people see it as a means of expression, sometimes without realizing that's what they're doing. The more totalitarian the state becomes, the more people try to use it (or must use it) to change things, and politics enters normal areas of life that should be inherently apolitical.
There are reactionaries pushing their concerns, but they are so small and few in number that none of your normie friends know who they are.
Everything could be political, but hardly anything should be. And anyone telling you that everything is political is telling you they are a totalitarian. Typically an issue became political because a leftist ideolog was seeking to use political agitation to attack a cultural institution with state power.
That's not from the sport concept, it's a rhetorical trick of the Left. Everything they believe in is inherently apolitical. Everything you believe in is injecting hostile politics of hate.
This is easily demonstrated by Tim Pool's old criticism of Twitter. A misgendering policy is an inherently political rule and is being inherently left-wing politically. A Conservative thinks inherently that calling a transwoman a woman is, by definition, misgendering because they aren't using the gender they are born as. The head of Twitter at the time didn't really understand the concept because his ideological blinders were so tight he never realized that there was a dispute regarding the definition of gender; which caused them to have an inherent left-wing bias.
This is the same reason they scream about how the right-wing is trying to fight a divisive culture war, while they carpet-bomb right-wing people in the culture war they started.
I don’t believe that this was a good faith mistake.
By Vijaya, no. By Dorsey, yes.
No quarter
I've seen intelligent and not very political people in science and medical fields make blanket statements about "Oh I wish they wouldn't make this a political issue. This should be common sense!" when it comes to something in their area of expertise. Of course due to the nature of left-wing media dominance of the narrative, these people also usually fail to see exactly who is making a particular issue political. They think there's some right-wing influence network pushing reactionary ideas instead of just normal people voicing their concerns. I try to explain that something being political or not has nothing to do with truth or the influence of dishonest actors. It's simply: "Do you think X?" "Well I disagree, and I'll only vote for politicians that agree with me."
So literally everything could be political. The problem here is really the influence of the state and that people see it as a means of expression, sometimes without realizing that's what they're doing. The more totalitarian the state becomes, the more people try to use it (or must use it) to change things, and politics enters normal areas of life that should be inherently apolitical.
There are reactionaries pushing their concerns, but they are so small and few in number that none of your normie friends know who they are.
Everything could be political, but hardly anything should be. And anyone telling you that everything is political is telling you they are a totalitarian. Typically an issue became political because a leftist ideolog was seeking to use political agitation to attack a cultural institution with state power.
Even the phrase "politically correct" is designed to enforce the idea that their views are unassailable and all opposition is wrong.
Marxist language trickery.
Actually, it's co-opted anti-communist language.
Soviet dissidents used the phrase to say when something was true, but not tolerable within the party's narrative and shouldn't be spoken out loud:
"It's correct, but it's not politically correct." Or alternatively the opposite: "It may not be true, but it's politically correct."
They took that a dissident term that lambasted their hypocrisy, and turned it into a concept that tries to denote "being kind".