That’s not event close to true but I haven’t the time at present to get into a rebuttal - which, let’s be fair, would likely be ignored anyway.
Firstly, I don’t think any sensible person would choose option B in your last example and there’s obviously far more to that story.
Secondly, it’s not acknowleding Group A has done shitty things in the past to Group B, it saying that because some people in Group A did shitty things to people in Group B back in the past, everyone in Group A is a horrible, horrible person who should apologise for existing - even if the people from Group B are pretty much non-existent in the area, so it’s actually people from Group C being offended on behalf of the almost hypothetical members of Group B.
With regard to Gamergate, there really wasn’t that much more to the story. Even here, there were plenty of people insisting that it was the fault of the women for not taking into account the feelings of all men when calling out the ones engaged in abusive behavior, as if men’s hurt feelings were more important that actual death threats.
And yet my personal experience is that “person from Group B says that some people in Group A are doing shitty things to people from Group B right now, and then other people in Group A - who may not even have been the ones referred to by Group B - act as if the initial accusation was aimed at **all **members of Group A and lash out at the initial accuser (and sometimes all members of Group B) and demand that their hurt feelings be addressed before the original - and much more substantive - issue is dealt with”. That’s the reality that keeps getting handwaved away.
Group C gets involved because Group A members tend to dismiss anything Group B members say.
Ok, can someone clarify my understanding here? Whenever I see or hear “SJW” used, it seems to translate literally to “a person who feels that jigaboos, fairies, wetbacks, dykes, slopes, tree huggers, atheists and such like deserve to be treated with the same respect as decent god-fearing white folk”. It appears to wrap up every bigothet within it, the words that the user desperately wants to be able to freely pepper their language with were it not for the goddam PC-Patrol.
So, how am I to see or hear “SJW” and not instantly think that the person using it is an utterly loathsome shitbag?
Be careful not to trigger the special snowflakes. You know that referring to them as bigots could trigger their delicate sensibilities, and cause them to do something irrational, like vote for trump. Likewise calling them loathsome or shitbag.
You know, for a brief window there, and I was undoubtedly lagging behind the times, it seemed like the term Social Justice Warrior was vaguely useful to describe a certain sort of person in certain situations.
Remember that old graphic that went around which humorously reminded people not to get embroiled in usenet flame wars? It had a chart of several types of “keyboard warriors” who each had their own specialty over which they’d get upset and devote all of their time obsessing and flaming people online. I figured “SJW” was that sort of thing, meant to describe someone who, although they otherwise share many of the same views as I do, go all out batshit online attacking the most ridiculous examples of perceived social injustice. You know, the sort of person where you’d shake your head and mutter, “Dude, you’re not helping.”
But it was not meant to be. Whatever utility the term might once have had for moderate and/or reasonable folks on the left to play No True Scotsman has long been ruined.
Not everyone who uses the term is necessarily a hopeless bigot or inveterate troll, of course. I still hold out hope that many of the young and/or clueless who’ve been sucked into one or another clickbait-driven flame war can be convinced to save themselves from a life of outrage and pointless bigoted hate.
Not quite - it means “a person who thinks [all those minorities you described with epithets] are extra special and their feelings and right to be outraged over trivialities is far more important than the rights/feelings/opinions of everyone else, especially if those everyone elses are caucasian heterosexual men.”
No, you don’t. It’s not referencing him as a final arbiter. It’s referencing him saying something perfectly obvious.
If you think you can hurt someone and then tell them that you didn’t hurt them, that’s just gaslighting. You did hurt them, even if you didn’t mean to.
And if you truly believe you didn’t hurt them, then you’re just delusional. They and they alone can tell if they were hurt.
You may not have meant it. They may have misunderstood. But you hurt their feelings. If you claim otherwise, you are either lying or delusional–as in, denying the objective, factual reality. Like saying the sky is purple or Wednesday is immediately followed by Saturday.
If someone says you hurt them, you are physically incapable of determining that you didn’t.
So there’s nothing precluding you from acknowledging that you’ve hurt someone, and, instead of apologising, telling them to sack the fuck up and stop being a baby.