Those of us who make things, used to call these losers weak, ignorant, obstructionist, and sometimes dangerous. Especially when they group up and start throwing rocks at cops.
It may seem obvious to the rational mind that what you call something should be less of a concern than how you treat something. The opposite is the case for regressives. All that matters is the vernacular and the continuation of the branded narrative. Branded narratives require a common language. Where the regressives break the game is they try to apply their colloquialism to everyone else whether they agree or not. The opposition to those who would "force things" is a red haring because they will use force themselves as soon as they have the cover of the group to protect their cowardly asses.
Free speech is meaningless if your private opinions can get you fired or in general your private life isn't private anymore.
What's more entertaining than a crowd of misinformed, underachievers in 'No' mode? Manipulating social media and corrupt companies that profit from their activity, the regressives fight to protect their own while calling individuals the most offensive things they can think of. As long as they disagree (assuming it isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic etc). If it's personal it's fair game, tasty even. Turnabout is always fair play, hence the strong victim narrative that underpins everything the left does.
Free speech is meaningless if your private opinions can get you fired or in general your private life isn't private anymore. This is the irony, given how much time is spent bitching online about dictators and authoritarians. Who is more authoritarian than the one facilitating your firing for something as trivial as being in a band years earlier with a sensational theme. Who is more of a dictator when one raises a mob to surround a scheduled speaking engagement on a university campus to prevent the audience from entering the venue?
I wonder of the Social Justice Warriors, who seem to be the only ones using words like Hate, and phrases like Dead Cops, Fry Like Bacon. Is this how the populist movements of the past happened? Like Communism in mainland China under Mao Zedong, the regressives gather under the banner of a populist role model who propagandizes their virtue. Validating the mob to separate them from the "bad people" through disavowal. They destroy all the product of those who came before, as they are the enemy, not just politically, but culturally.
Today's social movement has declared war on thought and opinions that don't conform to the liberal political agenda. Word police. You either measure up or you will be taken down. While it is politically inconvenient to use violence to push the agenda, the strategy will be endless protest and professional agitation where-ever there's a camera or business that responds. When that fails, rocks vs cops, violence vs those who don't agree becomes inevitable as we've seen at recent political rallies in the U.S. It's sad the way all non-liberals were painted as bad people in the last Canadian election. Harper wasn't just a bad leader, he was evil! Even NDP leader, Tom Mulcair(even further left) was called a wild eyed lunatic who secretly hates women, etc.
Extortion in the work place, blackmail online; Gawker shaming and winning at all costs are the standard tools of those who take power by force and it always sells itself as progress while leveraging the state to do its dirty work. Sounds a lot like when the "cool kids" used to pick on the "losers" in high school with the apparent indifference of the principals office because those same kids were the football team. Except under today's normal, the "cool kids" keep yelling, "racist!" before every punch which they believe makes them righteous.
Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' killed 45 million people in four years and stole all their wealth to feed his socialism for the so called 'greater good', making him the worst mass murder in history. Thus is the dangerous power of the state when narrow special interests take control. I bet you support the social agenda because you want equality and opportunity, or because you still think women aren't paid enough, or your religion or ethnic heritage drives a community narrative. Who really benefits in the long term by supporting the special interests instead of a neutral system that focuses on creating as much opportunity for everyone as possible? Are you sure it's you?
Embrace the ethics of rational self interest. Make the world a safer place.