Wonder why you used this language to start the conversation:

Generally this is referencing any policy that is contrary to a leftist belief that the thread discusses.

Do you believe this? If so, why?

Is it true / false in some or all scenarios?

Is it with certain groups or regarding certain things?

These three go together for me, as the phrase is frequently used to highlight the fact that the policies or practices are based on people who are 'other' and serve no beneficial purpose to society in general while also negatively impacting people. Things like banning stuff like LGBTQ+ events or activities, banning DEI, creating laws that punish people for seeking out healthcare are all things that only exist to punish someone for being different or making choices for themselves. The vast majority of the time I see the phrase it is about some conservative initiative to rile their base by targeting the minority group of the week with laws and policies that actively harm people.

It is sometimes used incorrectly because any terminology gets used incorrectly.

Do you feel that speech like this is conducive to fixing societal issues?

Yes, because it is a response that stresses the fact that a lot of actions taken that sound like they could be a mistake are actually intentionally harmful to a subset of the population. The war on drugs for example is on record as being promoted to put minorities and hippies in jail for example. Language that opposes harm doesn't need to be calm, it should be forceful and provoke a response because it both promotes action from those that agree because there is a strong front and it can sway people who might not be aware of the negative impacts of whatever is being criticized.

It does not matter if it doesn't sway the people who are in favor of the harm because it isn't framed in a nice way. They are already on board with harm.

Yes, some people go overboard but that doesn't invalidate the message any more than someone who takes anything too far.

Is what is considered “kind” always the best course of action?

Pointing out something is harmful doesn't mean the opposite is kind. In most cases not doing anything at all would be the opposite of the harmful actions, and not doing anything is not kind any more than not punching someone in the stomach isn't being kind.

Honestly, there's a lot of writing about this sentiment already which explains it in great depth. To understand it, that would be a good place to start.

But, yes, I absolutely believe it's true in many cases. For example, the criminal justice system, from police brutality to prisons. There are many proven alternative methods to rehabilitate, reduce crime, and make society safer, and a certain political persuasion utterly refuses to consider any of it. Digging into their arguments, the only internally consistent explanation is that they want people to punish. It doesn't matter if crime could be prevented and everybody made better off. In short, the cruelty of the punishment is the point, even if it means that we have more crime victims as a result.