I wish people would just relax, but I don't think mass-communication works this way. In a small group, people negotiate the morals and the social values of a group. (and then, of course, push those boundaries and re-negotiate values, etc) I've often felt that this process breaks down in larger groups. Moral values are seldom "settled," since the group is too large and disperse for any given values to really propagate. The outrage and accusations don't stop, they simply aren't resolved. There's more to it than this, but it's a bit like getting angry at someone in a road rage incident. You're never going to meet that person again. Even if you "won" the debate and "taught" them a lesson, you won't ever encounter them again. It's possible you've modified their behavior, but you'll never be able to notice a difference in the environment. The scale is too big for your anger to have been useful.

Of course, even this poor example is pretty optimistic. Often the conflict makes things worse, and not better, whether or not you could measure the difference of your singular action.

You are intentionally misinterpreting the GP's comment or at least seem to be from my interpretation. Nobody is annoyed that they can't sprinkle legitimate criticism with personal attacks. That was never considered normal or ok though it may have been tolerated in some contexts. People are annoyed that any direct criticism can be construed as a personal attack.

The people most upset about being called out by “SJWs” are the ones whose behaviour is most problematic and exclusionary.

Except they always had a voice, and acting like they did not does not help. They also had the choice to not listen.

> You're imagining shadows on the wall coming to get you if you think that there are people literally waiting for you to say something to take your job away.

I am not sure you have been keeping up with things. That is exactly what is happening. Say the wrong words, end your job.

> Meanwhile the people who are picked on do have people doxxing them, emailing them grotesque photos and death threats, showing up at their houses, etc. I would bet a good sum of money that you've never had to deal with any of that.

While I am sure this has happens to people, and has to many people on all sorts of sides of any conversation. This is not a "them us" issue. If things like this have happened to you I am very sorry that you had to experience that. But that has nothing to do with all peoples who are 'loud-mouth' and all peoples who are 'anti-sjw'. The actions described belong solely to the individuals who did them.

Please stop grouping people based on different attributes, it leads to racism and bigotry. Each one of us are individuals and should be judged as so. Doing any thing other is outright nonsense. I will not let you take my or any other persons individuality and water it down to some group you define.

We are all individual and and can only be held accountable for your actions good or bad.

> Learn some non-violent communication.

Words are never violent. Words are not physical. (I am with you if somebody starts throwing wood cutouts of words at people, yeah that is probably bad)

> Empathize with other people.

It seems those who find words "violent" are the ones that are not capable of empathizing with the society around them, thus wanting everybody to conform to their subjective views.

> Maybe you should check yourself.

Just because some people do bad things does not mean everybody needs to change their behavior because it reminds you of the things bad people have done in the past.

I am not sure you have been keeping up with things. That is exactly what is happening. Say the wrong words, end your job.

Sure it happens. Does it happen a tenth as often as the times a woman gets sexually harassed in an office and is expected to ignore it as normal? That any rebalancing of power will involve some problems, doesn't mean that rebalancing is entirely bad and should be avoided, and that the people on the lower side of the power scale should be quiet and stop being uppity because the people on the high side don't like it.

> I will not let you take my or any other persons individuality and water it down to some group you define.

You just grouped a huge number of people from disparate backgrounds into "they always had a voice" to bulk-dismiss their speaking up. Why aren't you taking their situations as invidual situations with their own merits? Why aren't you willing to admit that any of them at all might have a valid point?

> Words are never violent.

Words are not physical, but that's not enough to say they aren't violent. Look at a definition of "violent" and its synonyms, many of them apply to words: synonyms: harsh, rough, aggressive, bullying, threatening, terrorizing, fierce, hot-tempered, frenzied, inhuman, heartless, callous, ruthless, merciless, pitiless, cruel, destructive, damaging, painful; 2. (especially of an emotion or a destructive natural force) very strong or powerful. "violent dislike", synonyms: intense, extreme, strong, powerful, forceful, raging"

If you can have "violent dislike" you can sure have "pitiless cruel intense extreme terrorizing callous bullying" words..

If people are not allowed to offend, being offended becomes a weapon.

Further, polite language does not prevent oppression or racism etc.. It only makes it secret.

Well said. That just went in my permanent quotes file.

My handwriting was once so terrible as to be illegible, and I refused to change it. My teacher called me out by holding up my writing for the class to see. Instead of crying about it, I changed my handwriting, and it changed the way I was able to organise my work. This is so much better the alternative of diplomatically letting crap work slide.

Something bad happening to some people does not justify doing it to others. By all means, dox the doxxers, but don't go full human flesh search engine over some bs someone said.

There is a big disconnect where SJWs see it as life and death survival because they are aware of all the incidences of people getting beaten or killed because of their identity, and the other side sees it as politically correct pedantry because of the blowups over people saying things like "fork his repo". I agree that both sides need more empathy.

It's cultural too. I find the politically correct culture stifling because my culture is endless shit talking to friends and being physical. That is completely unacceptable where I work, and I understand why, but at the same time it's a total drag.

At the end of your post you tell people to be kind, but yet here you’re calling people names and using very strong language like “despise”.

And recent history shows that plenty on your side are doing the things you claim they aren’t / only the other side is doing.

> If we're all kind to one another what is it we need to be afraid of exactly?

Define “kind”. Your argument amounts to “if you’ve done nothing wrong what do you have to hide”. Well, define “wrong”. There are tons of people who legitimately have conniptions at the slightest of “microaggressions”. Thank God for the anti-SJWs otherwise we’d be living in hell.