Let me try and explain these. First and foremost, and I'm sorry to say it, but you're arguing against broad stereotypes with even broader, more dramatized stereotypes. As with all stereotypes, these are laid on thick and too quickly, even when they don't apply. They do, on the other hand, have valid use, even if they aren't nice terms.
Since we are pattern-matching creatures, it's easier and often necessary for us to label or group things or ideals together to handle the sheer volume of what we deal with on any given day. In strictest terms, it may lead to us oversimplifying issues and judging, or prejudging, people too quickly, but it's how we think. It may not be 'enlightened,' but I'll still challenge anyone to find someone who believes they are 'enlightened' who does not automatically assume everyone else (or, more often those who disagree) is 'not.'
Just the same: Butthurt
It's an unkind term, and one I don't like. The term means someone who either doesn't realize the situation they've found themselves in and/or is unable to accept/handle criticism, and then argue that they are either a victim or that everyone else is an ***hole for pointing this out or criticizing them.
Often used in terms of people who are being actively trolled, insulted or even threatened, this is an example of it being used wrong.
Used 'correctly' refers, as an example, to a person who submits something to a contest or public forum and finds that it isn't met with immediate accolades. In short, people who have yet to realize that they aren't anywhere near as good as they think they are and who've yet to grow skin thick enough to handle the (honestly, soul-crushing) experience of having your work torn apart, which is part of the learning process.
You'll often find this among writers, really, but happens in all fields. In terms of movies, it can be reasonably put at the feet of Shamaylan (sp?) for what happened after The Village, which, by many accounts, led to him making Lady in the Water, which had him playing a writer whose work would change the world, but was antagonized by an eeeevil critic.
In other words: this is for people who just got 'spanked' by reality.
Brown nosing:
In proper usage, it's a term for Yes Men; those who seek to ingratiate themselves to something or someone. For the label, someone who kisses someone else's butt. Again, comes in all walks of life, and yes, often used wrong. It's come to mean those who (usually referring to a fandom of some kind) are incapable of not agreeing with something from the show or its creator; or worse, being unable to question anything they say.
In Star Trek fandoms, you'll often find this among people who refuse to hear facts from the show pointing to Star Fleet being a military (or paramilitary), generally because Roddenberry said no, or because the character said it that one time. I won't go into this, but if you'd like a good spiel, check out a guy called SFDebris and look for his most recent 'Next Generation' video. I enjoy his stuff and liked Star Trek when I watched it.
In reference to Superman from your statement, there's conversations I've gotten into with fans of the franchise. To preface, I have never really read or gotten into comics, and have never bought one.
I don't like Superman on the grounds that you can't get away from the messianic nature of the character. To be blunt, nearly every story I have read about the character, I have found generally childish and contrived. I have read decent stories concerning him, but have found them to be the exception by far and, so, I won't waste my time seeking out the few I may enjoy. Further, I have issue with events in-continuity where he has done terrible things and they are ignored after they've been done; reboot notwithstanding. I also respect the history and impact of the character.
Arguing that a person likes/doesn't mind the messianic nature of the stories, disagreeing that they really are more just an ideal that a messiah (I don't see the difference myself) and liking that kind of ideal, and arguing that the industry's method of swapping in and out authors leads to some disjointed narratives that you have to take with a grain of salt and ignore the ones you dislike are all fine.
Being told, and this is in no way an exaggeration: "No one's allowed to question the actions of that character. He's an ideal of what we're supposed to be, and that ideal can't be criticized, no matter what he does. His actions are, by definition, always good." That's brown nosing, with this definition.
White Knights:
Jack Thompson.
No, seriously, Jack Thompson.
Not counting some odd stuff that came well before his focusing on video games (which most people only really learned about later) and the stuff that came right at the end (VG cats and Penny Arcade being two big ones), Jack Thompson was a figure in gaming for quite some time and, in many ways, the butt of everyone's joke. He was universally despised by the community, with videos put out by Screw Attack celebrating his disbarment and PA basically taunting him throughout, and most people would agree he deserved it.
As with your 'A,' though, he wasn't wrong. Video games are generally quite violent, but calling everyone in the community out on the idea that violent games make people violent just pissed people off. The entire issue of him calling pedophilia on the Sims was the result of a troll (or so is my understanding) and, by all accounts, what he received by way of hate mail and threats from the community was far worse and universal.
I approve of neither, mind you.
Thompson complaining that there was an animated gif, however crude, of him being beaten to death was a joke.
'A' complaining that there was a program that overlayed a gif over a picture of her face (which I am aware of ones for presidents Bush and Obama, and Justin Bieber, to name just a few) became a platform and source of sympathy and support.
Both have been caught in lies and done PR stunts, such as trying to gain sensationalist support from outside the community.
Absolutely no one stood up, or will stand up, for Jack Thompson.
The term, rather ironically considering, is that a damsel in distress will be saved by a White Knight.
