If most SJW boards allowed someone to argue for two years, while making claims that showed they were outrageous uniformed, like doubting the moon landing and being a truther and only gave them warnings after that time for being wrong (Many times objectively wrong)? I wouldn't think they were extremists or awful. What Tan doesn't get is that if the SJW people treated their opponents, like we treat him? We'd be fine with it. The point has always been to give someone a chance to defend their case, to argue and try to bring up points. This doesn't mean they have to tolerate you forever within their most personal spaces, nor do they have to listen to you in the more open communication spaces in the world (Whether that is on the street or on twitter.)
But they do have to let you speak in the wider world, even if they ignore you. And that is the big divide here--it is what Tan is missing, is how those people view the world outside of their insular bubble. When they leave their echo chamber, what do they believe? The SJW ideologue believes all forms of public interaction (Not just within their smaller, semi-private space) should be beholden to their view of the world. They don't just want you banned on their own little enclave of the internet, they want you banned from Twitter, Facebook and Patreon and any crowd funding, they want you controlled in public institutions and black listed from jobs, they want to call your employer and be praised for slandering you as part of a hate group. This is the difference between simply being close minded and being an extremist; it is, in large part, a question of severity. I, personally think idiots like Wu and Zoe should have every right to talk, and even be fairly represented by the media; I also think the people they accuse and their detractors should be able to respond. They, however, don't feel that way--and they will openly say it. They will openly say their opposition shouldn't even get the chance to present their ideas; that it is a kind of wrong think. He won't see the difference in extremes there--so the difference in extremes between a insular community policing their own, and an insular community wanting everyone to listen to them so they can police EVERYONE else? Is wholly and completely different.
He's not going to get it though. He's not going to get that Wu's minions turning on her is different than us calling him dumb and telling him to slow down in a SINGLE thread. He doesn't see the fact that Wu got tarred and feathered for simply drinking coffee with the enemy (Not even agreeing with him); while Tan was told to not overwhelm with opinions that were, at the very least, clearly obstinate and posted in such volume it made it hard to communicate; he, however was welcomed to post them in moderation and is STILL welcomed to post about other subjects and hang out with us, even on friendly terms (Note his posts in the FSR or other game threads). But all anyone has to do to really see the difference is look ask how many people have denigrated or blacklisted/ignored/boycotted (As Wu was threatened with) Quaid because Quaid has been nice to him (Hint: No one). How many people denigrated/ignored me, Khalid or and the others for openly defending him and arguing with the mods about him (In a VERY unpopular stance)? Exactly, no one did, even while disagreeing with the mods and the community in HIS defense I was treated respectfully and other aspects of my posting here were not shit on.
This illustrates a massive difference in severity in how a community like this responds to radically opposed view points and a community like Ghazi, who right now has a fucking "tagger" list so they can track KIA posters and down vote them, and report them, in other forums on Reddit. (Not Kidding) In short, huge false equivalence, but not surprising right? This is the man who though NASA scientists and the foremost experts in the world in physics, rocketry and astrophysics were somehow comparable in validity to some quack who wrote about the Van Allen Belts being unsurvivable...So he's obviously used to false equivalences being the norm.
