This guy is completely innocent and has done no wrong, yet he feels so guilty and tip-toes around everything, just because he has white skin and a penis. That's can only be the result of a movement that is sexist and racist. That's the issue people have.
But I hear you. "He's privileged!" The thing is, he has no control over the privilege that others give him. And no one should feel guilty for something they do not ask for, do not do themselves, and do not have any control over.
The fault with privilege is in the people who give it to others. The only way to fix such a thing is for all of society to stop giving favors to people based on their gender, race and sexuality. What a fucking shame it is that these SJWs are doing exactly the opposite of that.
This is how the status quo of "social justice" has transformed:
Past: "No one should receive positive or negative treatment based on superficial factors, we are all of equal worth"
Present: "White men are all better off, therefore let's treat them like shit and do lots of favours for everyone else to even it out"
If that sounds like a positive transformation, and not a regression, then I am quite concerned. One seems to be an enlightened response, the other seems to be at the level of a teenage middle child.
It's a lesson that doesn't seem to get learned, even after decades of research saying that people start internalizing negative stereotypes, 'reasons' they have been abused, and statements indicating low expectations of them. When people hear 'math is hard', many people don't even try to learn it. When people who consider themselves part of 'group X' hear 'group X is bad at whatever', they don't do 'whatever'. And when 'group Y' hears that they won't amount to anything, many just give up trying. It's destructive, it's horrible, and it is real.
There are a few important things to realize here. Some of those who say these horrible things often don't understand the topics very deeply. As a former, and still peripheral member of various social justice 'communities' (and I quote that because the 'communal' part is often centered around unfocused anger), I see and have seen so many people come to discussions with only talking-point-level understanding who run with it (or are simply running on 'cached thoughts', rather than situational ones.) The other thing, which the author likely knows well, is that in the Oppression Olympics, the author is in the biggest loser group, so is going to be cared about the least. Despite endless blog posts and pleas to end the OO, internecine attacks, ally-bashing, purity tests, knee-jerk responses, and all the other wonders of the SJW world, it goes on. I don't blame the author for exiting. It's part of what made me sideline myself, and many other former dedicated members of these communities.
This is absolutely a good idea. As a gung-ho advocate for Twitter for several years, the service has become a cesspit of mud slinging, public shaming, and rapidly bringing together people for crusades rather than somewhere opinions can be discussed sensibly and processed over time (140 characters + real time == ripe for gut reactions and basal instincts, unlike blogging or video).
A 'lite' alternative I've adopted in the past week is to only read and post but to totally ignore the "Notifications" tab (so you see no @replies). That way you get the best bits but without exposure to most of the toxicity.
Twitter can be great, but you have to be careful how you use it. I severely limit who I follow (I have friends who I don't follow because their Twitter habits just don't match what I want to see in my feed) and I'm not afraid to block anyone who gets abusive.
However, it is an inherently tough environment. If you were deliberately designing a service to be as anti-intellectual as possible, you'd be hard pressed to do better than Twitter's extreme length limit, realtime operation, and obscured context. You can work around it but it's still there.
I follow mostly academics, researchers, and people who tend to ascribe to the "talk is cheap, show me the code" mentality. My Twitter experience is very positive (and when someone gets a little too happy with inflammatory tweets, the "mute"/"unfollow"/"disable retweets" buttons are very easy to find).
This is very true. Unfortunately a lot of the more prolific open source/Web people I need to follow due to my work like jumping onto bandwagons or raise pitchforks on social matters. The people I'd follow if I were just using Twitter for fun would be very different (and indeed, having realized that, I started a new account last night that's entirely for my own gratification :-)).
I think a big part of the problem is that when people are angry, they resort to shame as a tool of retaliation. Instead of saying "Dude, what you said was uncool." they say "Dude, you are a piece of shit."
I think Brene Brown explains very well the importance of guilt vs shame and I'd like to see greater awareness of this distinction in conversations about "isms":
The author is suffering from unreciprocated empathy.
After a while of noticing the shades of grey, you come to realise that those at the extremes see things as purely bivalent. i.e by their definition if they're 'white' and your white has the merest hint of black in it, you're against them Q.E.D.
Getting involved leads to a lose-lose self-reinforcing situation. Even opining whilst on one's own turn will get you dragged in if you're noticed by one of the extremists.
Getting depressed by hanging around with assholes is not very surprising. If these are the people you get to meet in your online activism, it probably helps to stop thinking of them as partial to your cause, especially if you truly believe that there are more constructive ways for the movement to manifest itself.
But I hear you. "He's privileged!" The thing is, he has no control over the privilege that others give him. And no one should feel guilty for something they do not ask for, do not do themselves, and do not have any control over.
The fault with privilege is in the people who give it to others. The only way to fix such a thing is for all of society to stop giving favors to people based on their gender, race and sexuality. What a fucking shame it is that these SJWs are doing exactly the opposite of that.
This is how the status quo of "social justice" has transformed:
Past: "No one should receive positive or negative treatment based on superficial factors, we are all of equal worth"
Present: "White men are all better off, therefore let's treat them like shit and do lots of favours for everyone else to even it out"
If that sounds like a positive transformation, and not a regression, then I am quite concerned. One seems to be an enlightened response, the other seems to be at the level of a teenage middle child.