It’s probably just a definition thing.

To me, constructive criticism means that the criticism doesn’t just point out failure, but that it then also shows how to correct that failure.

By itself, “you’re doing it wrong” is just destructive: it takes something apart, it destroys it. Without a subsequent “and here’s how you would do it right,” it doesn’t become constructive, it doesn’t help in putting things back together in the correct way.

Sure, as a first step, “you’re doing it wrong” is completely justified when something is actually wrong.

But without the second step - the constructive part - it just doesn’t constitute constructive criticism. By itself, it’s just criticism.

Is saying “you’re doing it wrong” really constructive?

If the term “allistic” offends you: grow up, it’s a new word. Is learning a new word scary?

I have no particular opinion on the term “allistic,” but what happened to the maxime that each group should get the final say on the terminology applied to that specific group?

Now we’re saying to a specific group “hey, from now on we’ll call you all this new term and you all can just shut up and deal with it, because you don’t get a say?”

Seems like contradicting messages.

There’s not one single person in the world who should own a thousand million dollars, never mind hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars.

The pure existence of billionaires is unethical and immoral - doesn’t matter whether they’re being stupid and fascist in public, or quietly pulling strings and bending society to their will in the background.

How long are we, as a society, going to allow shit like this in the name of free speech?

It feels that those nations that experienced the Nazi terror of the Third Reich have a much better idea of what constitutes dangerous speech.

Allowing this kind of stochastic terrorism out of some misguided notion of “free speech” is just not a good idea.