Just FYI:

RE: ...[Wong] seems to discount or turn a blind eye to the fact that many blacks, in particular, are, to some extent at least, the authors of their own misfortunes. — Wong explicitly addresses that point in his article. Maybe you should read it.

RE: ...that “courtesy is actually a virtue” … seems not to square all that well with your “The art of the insult and the sin of the slur” — That article already answers that question (it is specifically about when rudeness and ridicule are warranted, and of what sort). Maybe you should read it. In fact it squares perfectly well. Unless you are a black and white thinker who can only comprehend statements as exceptionless absolutes. But that would then be your problem. Tend to it.

RE: ...I think she, and you and many other “social justice warriors”, go overboard in your expectations of and demands for “trigger warnings” — That charge is already answered by myself in the article you are commenting on and by Mogilevsky in the article you are referring to. I actually explain how I barely even use trigger warnings (the exact opposite of “going overboard” with it). So maybe you should actually read what I wrote and what she wrote. That would save you the trouble of raising moot, already-refuted objections, and looking kind of silly to everyone else who responsibly did their homework on this.

RE: ...one might reasonably expect prospective students to perform some due diligence in analyzing the syllabi they are expected to follow prior to actually taking the courses... — If that worked, then that would entail trigger warnings were de facto used (just as I explained I employ them implicitly) and therefore no longer needed. So you are actually arguing for trigger warnings! What Mogilevsky is arguing for is to make it possible for students to do exactly what you just recommended. When you offer a rebuttal that is actually an affirmation of the very position you are rebutting, you clearly haven’t understand anything you read. Tend to that.

RE: ...it might help if “you” were to give some thought to the fact that rather too many “social justice warriors” have rather clearly gone off the deep end in their demands and actions... — Not relevant to anything I or Mogilevsy argued. She would agree with you that some bad excesses exist. As they do for all good recommendations (“some cops beat suspects up” is true but not an argument against having police; likewise “some people ask for stupid standards” is true but not an argument against having standards). So, deal with what we are actually arguing. And stop using extreme fringe cases as arguments against what is actually being recommended.

RE: ...cases in point would seem to include, among many others, the Graduate Queer Alliance at Stony Brook University objecting to and demanding sanctions against someone who merely objected to gay marriage in the context of a debate on a broader issue... — You need to do your homework. Again, you fail to even read or understand your own sources. You are referring to this. Which doesn’t say anything you just claimed. That letter says better procedures to inform them of the event should have been followed, and they even used the example of another event that did so as their model (and it did not involve excluding the offensive speaker). They did not ask for “sanctions against” anyone (nor was the person in question “merely objecting to gay marriage,” as they explain in detail the issue was much worse). They asked that better procedures be followed next time any such bigot is paid by the school to speak at it, so that they could better address it when it occurs. They did not ask that such things never happen at all. Why don’t you know this?

RE: ...the black Boston University professor (Saida Grundy) “taunting a white rape victim” ... — Um…If you think that’s wrong, then you are agreeing with social justice warriors! (Since they are the very people who teach that you don’t taunt rape victims.) So how is this an example of social justice warriors going overboard? This example just makes no sense. You are trying to prove over-sensitivity, yet cite an example of under-sensitivity. That suggests you don’t know how evidence works. In fact it looks like all you did was find just one random awful person, who just happens to also be doing social justice. You may as well use this as an example of college professors being assholes, because some college professors are assholes. That’s called a false generalization fallacy. Gundy is also a criminal. So does that mean social justice warriors are criminals? Or that “some social justice warriors are criminals” is ever a relevant argument against the aims and principles of social justice advocacy? Is “some atheists are criminals” ever a relevant argument against the truth or advocacy of atheism? Oh, wait, no, it’s not. Try thinking better. Please.

RE: ...the Goldsmith’s University Diversity Officer (Bahar Mustafa) who insisted that “I can’t be racist because I’m an ethnic minority woman” — Once again, I fail to see any relevance of this to your point. This has nothing whatever to do with anything I, Mogilevsky, or Wong have argued. It’s also silly to cite extremist weirdos in any argument about anything. That’s just like saying “Atheism sucks because Stalin.”

RE: ...the Feminist Studies Faculty Member (Dr. Mireille Miller-Young) at UC Santa Barbara who is accused (if not charged with) assaulting an anti-abortion activist ... — And atheism sucks because Stalin. Oh, wait, no, that’s a stupid argument. So why are you attempting it? (Other than to embarrass yourself?) In reality, of course, that was a trespasser on campus displaying unauthorized materials, an employee seizing them (as is in fact her right, to enforce campus policy; the ones bringing the signs on campus without permission were in the wrong: “activist groups are required to notify UCSB’s Office of Student Life of an upcoming trip so the Office can install its own signs warning students of explicit photos nearby, the Survivors failed to contact campus representatives before their March 4 demonstration” — that’s a quote from your own source, showing that yet again you don’t actually read even your own source materials), then being chased down, assaulted and physically harassed by those trespassers (outside the designated free speech area, and inside a campus building), and defending herself with commensurate force (i.e. pushing them away from her when they touched her). That isn’t an assault. I would think you of all people would believe in a property owner’s rights against trespassers and to enforce rules on their property (and their right to assign enforcement of those rights to their employees) and in the right to self defense against assault (by trespassers no less!).

So, you claim SJW’s sometimes go overboard in asking for trigger warnings and the acknowledging of structural racism…and provide not one single example relating to demonstrating either, but several examples fallaciously irrelevant to your point. Why? And why do you think “some people ask for stupid standards” is at all a rebuttal to people asking for non-stupid standards?

[As I was on vacation of late, I will temporarily extend the comment deadline for this post to June 6 in case you still want to attempt a less failed reply.]

Also, I often see more people railing against some PC strawman than I ever see the people going overboard with PC stuff, like the stereotype of the Tumblr SJW or the evil doxing, death-threatening feminazi. I suspect I don’t see them because they both caught a ride with Reagan’s welfare queen and illegal Muslim immigrant who crossed the Mexican border with an Iraqi-made nuke. I saw that kind of attempted balance fallacy when Angry Joe was discussing gaming controversies of 2014, like when he claimed both sides were as bad as the other as far as bullying the other. But while I have yet to see any evidence that the threatened school shooting, doxing, or death threats really were some bizarre Anti-GG false flag operation, I have seen where Gamergaters called SWAT teams on their critics, sent them death threats, drove them from their homes, and so on. And sometimes they justify it by bringing up the welfare queen/feminazi/SJW/Saddam nuke terrorist.

Pick your poison on the stereotype, because I’m pretty sure the main point of those unproven cliches is to provide a false context to justify attacks from people who know they are the ones in power punching down.

Regarding trigger/content warnings, I really don’t see the problem. The student in Miller’s article (2nd link in Mogilevsky’s article) wasn’t asking to be excused from the exercise, she just wanted some warning. It’s hard to tell from the article what the purpose was of using rape scenes as examples of beautiful language but how does, “the following reading contains descriptions of sexual assault” ruin the lesson? When I read “…almost in a moment, saw her, prized her, took her: so swift as this, is love,” I thought, that’s not love by any definition I’d use. It can be really enlightening to contrast ancient vs. modern concepts of love/rape but (as much as I can tell from the 3rd hand report) that didn’t even seem to be the point of the reading.

I fully agree that an important aspect of higher learning is to take people out of their comfort zones but that doesn’t mean it needs to be a surprise. For people who have been traumatized, being given the opportunity to mentally prepare might be all they need. If the trauma is severe enough, they may need to miss that particular lecture, realizing that it might affect their grade. To the people who say they need therapy instead of warnings, I suspect many of them are already in therapy (something most of us would benefit from). However, if depictions of rape don’t add anything to the course goals, there are plenty of other examples of beautiful language in ancient literature.

Nice job completely ignoring everything David Wong and Miri Mogilevsky said.

The irony is, everything you just said is a textbook example of black and white thinking.

Telling people that they act or should be treated different because of their skin color, religion (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, place of birth, parents, or any other situation in life, whether they are a part of a perceived privileged class or oppressed class, is antithetical to a secular morality. Treating people without regard to their individual merits or actions is a holdover from religion and superstition, and this type of thinking essentially sums up the article.

“…have every laudable motive to do something about it.” Once again, you’re alluding to action (‘do something’) with no substance behind it.

It’s an observable phenomenon. It has to do with people who see the world through black and white versions of the oppressed and the privileged, and where morality is dependent completely and entirely on the parties’ place on the spectrum. It’s one of the reasons that you see the far left obsessed with Islam, and intolerant of any criticism of it. It’s why the social justice movement keeps getting stuck in controversies like Michael Brown and the UVA rape story, which turned out to be largely fraudulent. They don’t look at this evidence, only the spectrum of oppression and decide outcome based on that.

I still challenge you to name one policy solution or recommendation in in the article that has a real life application. Telling white people to stop calling things they don’t like “political correctness” is cute for a sentence or two, but it isn’t a coherent worldview, or descriptive of one.

Original sin is a supernatural substance imbued in flesh, for which there is no evidence, and all science contradicts.

The debts and flaws incurred by the systems and estates we inherited are an actual real thing, empirically demonstrable, and entirely in accord with known science.

And those who care about humanity and making the world better than the one they were given, have every laudable motive to do something about it.

Everyone else is holding us back in the injustices of the broken system we are in.

Reverse caste system.

Hm.

I don’t think you know what any of those words mean.

“That means you can’t think of your life as a story. You have to think of it as one sentence in a much longer story … a sentence that doesn’t make any sense out of context. But, understand the context, and you will understand your life.”

Yes, we’re all born of original sin; we aren’t individuals, but participants in the long narrative of a fallen world. As a huge fan of Richard Carrier’s observations, I think this type of mindset is easily attributable to the collectivist nonsense of early religion. You’re born of original sin, and are powerless to redeem yourself of it except to behave as the self-anointed social justice warriors tell you to.

Just tell me where to send the check.