Poll: Victims and Victimhood - a prediction from the past

[Saltyk]

SNIP

People have a real hard time separating criticism of something they like and being criticized themselves. It's why you end up with people throwing around death threads for a low score on a aaa game or even a score that isn't quite high enough. (unless its one like cod which everyone has agreed to hate on) We even see it on movies like toy story 3, when people got pissed that it didn't have a 100% on rotten tomatoes.

I've seen people use high scores of hated games to "discredit" a critic. Jim Sterling has had this with his high score of CoD3 (If I remember correctly) as some sort of evidence that Jim is an idiot. Similarly, they use his love of Dynasty Warriors to discredit him.

Yeah, I remember seeing people get mad that Uncharted 3 was "only getting" 8/10 on several reviews. The thing is no one had played it yet. After playing it, I liked it, but it was certainly an 8/10 game.

Beyond that, I always hate hearing someone speak up for some "marginalized group" that they don't belong to. Bonus points if they don't even know anyone from said group. It shows so much disrespect for the group they claim to be speaking for. As a rule, people from those groups also hate having others speak for them from my experience. They'd much rather someone make a joke about them, then treat them like delicate and breakable objects.

"Speaking for", yes, but "speaking up for" isn't the same thing.

A good point. I suppose in my mind's eye, I picture someone "speaking for" a member of some minority group, while someone from that group tries to correct them, only to be dismissed.

Beyond that, I always hate hearing someone speak up for some "marginalized group" that they don't belong to. Bonus points if they don't even know anyone from said group. It shows so much disrespect for the group they claim to be speaking for. As a rule, people from those groups also hate having others speak for them from my experience. They'd much rather someone make a joke about them, then treat them like delicate and breakable objects.

I'm going to echo thaluikhain's sentiments:

"Speaking for", yes, but "speaking up for" isn't the same thing.

And then elaborate some.

See, speaking as someone who's part of more than one marginalised group, I appreciate it when people who aren't in those groups speak up in support or defense of me and mine. In fact, when you're a minority group especially, it's often hard to get any traction without aid from the majority. In my experience, a lot of people in the minority are often reticent to speak out when they're marginalised because they'll either get ganged up on (try saying something as seemingly mild as sexual harassment isn't cool in an online game), ignored, or treated as the hostile party.

What is a problem is talking over the people involved. Because while the support is appreciated, it's still us who have to live it. The large issue, at least in my book, is when someone who is "helping" takes away my self-determination.

See my mind's eye concept in my comment replying to thaluikhain.

I completely agree with your statement. Sure, I'm a middle-class straight white male, but I have spoken in defense of other people on more than one occasion. I can think of a coworker that seems to have some... misconceptions about gay people. I have tried to correct him on concepts like "gay people choosing to be gay" and such to no avail. However, I have had some luck with some people on that very same subject.

However, I do have gay friends, so at least I'm not speaking for gay people. More speaking up for my friends, even if they don't know it ever happened.

 

[runic knight]

The article does touch on some good points, in particular the line between a society that helps victims and a society that is centered around victims. Sadly the predictions made about a much more selfish and entitled society seems to be accurate, and the description of the victimhood leadership and opposition to free speech are dead on. It also seems the most easy to see example has been demonstrated in this thread very well.

"The culture feeds a mentality that crowds out a necessary give and take ? the very concept of good-faith disagreement ? turning every policy difference into a pitched battle between good (us) and evil (them)".

I am curious, did they have any thoughts about reversing that trend or about why and at what points it might change?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

The article does touch on some good points, in particular the line between a society that helps victims and a society that is centered around victims. Sadly the predictions made about a much more selfish and entitled society seems to be accurate, and the description of the victimhood leadership and opposition to free speech are dead on. It also seems the most easy to see example has been demonstrated in this thread very well.

"The culture feeds a mentality that crowds out a necessary give and take ? the very concept of good-faith disagreement ? turning every policy difference into a pitched battle between good (us) and evil (them)".

I am curious, did they have any thoughts about reversing that trend or about why and at what points it might change?

Yes I totally see the people here calling the other side an evil that will destroy society unlike the absolutely tame way the article views the opposite side.

 

[runic knight]

The article does touch on some good points, in particular the line between a society that helps victims and a society that is centered around victims. Sadly the predictions made about a much more selfish and entitled society seems to be accurate, and the description of the victimhood leadership and opposition to free speech are dead on. It also seems the most easy to see example has been demonstrated in this thread very well.

"The culture feeds a mentality that crowds out a necessary give and take ? the very concept of good-faith disagreement ? turning every policy difference into a pitched battle between good (us) and evil (them)".

I am curious, did they have any thoughts about reversing that trend or about why and at what points it might change?

Yes I totally see the people here calling the other side an evil that will destroy society unlike the absolutely tame way the article views the opposite side.

This sort of reply is why I have doubts you actually read the article. I mean that, because after the first sentence where he is describing the views of the person he talks about as seeing the world doomed toward infantilism, the rest is just going over claims made, with the worst of the "sky is falling" stuff being just describing what has been going on in politics itself and lamenting that it has, and explaining why it isn't good. Hardly anything close to "calling the other side an evil that will destroy society". In fact, they don't mention an "other side" at all, unless you mean proponents of victim-hood culture, which is not a group I was aware officially existed as an "other".

Your reply here though, and several others, are exactly what I meant as you abandon any sort of good-faith discussion on the ideas brought up to instead outright misrepresent the article and literally make it a good versus evil thing by implying "them" did just that.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I dunno, maybe one day humanity will outgrow the need to be shitty to one another in general, stop trying to punch down, fuck people over to get ahead, and that sort of stuff will be less focused on certain groups, then people won't feel quite as victimized as before.

People get tired of certain treatments over time, and they're eventually going to complain, and of course the people outside will tell them to shut up, and act like morons expecting a beaten down people to never complain. They don't stop, and consider that there might be a seed of truth in the complaints, and just don't want to hear it.

"safe places" where people can't disagree with you? You mean clubs geared to a certain mentality that people have been doing for ages just called something else?

People are quick to call some complaints petty, and dismiss them outright, but unfortunately it's the way we're wired to not wonder why they're complaining in the first place. Maybe they have a reason to complain about something we'd consider petty?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

The article does touch on some good points, in particular the line between a society that helps victims and a society that is centered around victims. Sadly the predictions made about a much more selfish and entitled society seems to be accurate, and the description of the victimhood leadership and opposition to free speech are dead on. It also seems the most easy to see example has been demonstrated in this thread very well.

"The culture feeds a mentality that crowds out a necessary give and take ? the very concept of good-faith disagreement ? turning every policy difference into a pitched battle between good (us) and evil (them)".

I am curious, did they have any thoughts about reversing that trend or about why and at what points it might change?

Yes I totally see the people here calling the other side an evil that will destroy society unlike the absolutely tame way the article views the opposite side.

Did you actually read the article? I mean that, because after the first sentence where he is describing the views of the person he talks about as seeing the world doomed toward infantilism, the rest is just going over claims made, with the worst of the "sky is falling" stuff being just describing what has been going on in politics itself and lamenting that it has, and explaining why it isn't good. Hardly anything close to "calling the other side an evil that will destroy society". In fact, they don't mention an "other side" at all, unless you mean proponents of victim-hood culture, which is not a group I was aware officially existed as an "other".

Your reply here though, and several others, are exactly what I meant as you abandon any sort of good-faith discussion on the ideas brought up to instead outright misrepresent the article and literally make it a good versus evil thing by implying "them" did just that.

Yes not just recognizing his claims as truth and not exaggeration is a clear sign of my bad faith. I'm glad you are here to tell us which of us are in speaking in good faith.

As for pretending it was aimed at 'proponents of victimhood culture', that's just a cop out. I'm not gonna pretend we don't know that it's an accusation aimed at people holding certain stances. Much like people crying about SJWs when people slap SJW as a label around like free candy. It's not just the dastardly boogeyman constructed that's being talked about, it's the people they slap the label on as an accusation or insult because they just know they're one and that's how they think.

And it is hilarious to just take their accusation of others making it 'good vs evil' as true and at face value and then turning around and saying it must be bad faith if someone doubts their description of this other side.

Oh and I'd say the way they portray the other side is far from 'good faith'.

 

[Something Amyss]

"safe places" where people can't disagree with you? You mean clubs geared to a certain mentality that people have been doing for ages just called something else?

No, safe places as in the sort of place where it's a social faux pas to call (for example) a homosexual a "******." The fact that people who are intolerant or outright hostile to a certain group might not be welcome is apparently quite devastating for some reason. I don't understand why, though, as that seems to be recognising yourself as a hostile force.

(not you specifically, mind).

Hm. Come to think of it, I suppose that does have a parallel to clubs and gatekeeping.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

"safe places" where people can't disagree with you? You mean clubs geared to a certain mentality that people have been doing for ages just called something else?

No, safe places as in the sort of place where it's a social faux pas to call (for example) a homosexual a "******." The fact that people who are intolerant or outright hostile to a certain group might not be welcome is apparently quite devastating for some reason. I don't understand why, though, as that seems to be recognising yourself as a hostile force.

(not you specifically, mind).

Hm. Come to think of it, I suppose that does have a parallel to clubs and gatekeeping.

Yeah, I get safe places in the context of creating a place of refuge from potential social hazards, which I support. A shelter from severe social instability, and abuse, and such. There's one near where I work at the least.

It's the example in the article seemingly aimed at the idea that arguing against an idea that I was aiming at. I'd think something of a "democrat's club" might be a better name for a "safe space" that prevents republicans, and other parties from arguing, and vice versa. Bleh, I feel dirty bringing up politics, but it's based off something I can barely remember from a month, or two ago. I guess the term "safe place" is trendy, but it kinda hints that it aughta be safe for everyone in the area, and not just for a select few.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So more "disagreement is okay as long as it reflects my views,other disagreement is harmful to society" belly-aching? Because these are typically the same folks who will cry victimization themselves. For example, this excerpt:

"On campuses, activists interpret ordinary interactions as ?microaggressions?

People have complained for decades about colleges being leftist and mistreating right-wing teachers and students with conservative values, but when somebody they don't agree with makes a similar complaint its "activists interpreting ordinary interactions as microaggressions". They'll see nothing wrong with somebody making a transparently homophobic remark because the only thing that qualifies as homophobia in their eyes is "kill all the gays" but heaven forbid somebody make a nasty remark about conservatives. This garbage was around before I was even born. Hell, I just clicked the author's name because I knew it would be very easy for me to find something that contradicts what he's purporting in this article and now even two months ago he wrote an article titled "Academia?s Rejection of Diversity - Many academics and intellectuals are biased against conservative viewpoints." It crops up again in just the next paragraph. "The culture feeds a mentality that crowds out a necessary give and take ? the very concept of good-faith disagreement ? turning every policy difference into a pitched battle between good (us) and evil (them)." It doesn't seem to be in good faith that academics just hold different values than him, no, its a plan from the liberal agenda. He's acting like, dare I say, a victim? Hypocrisy, plain and simple. Most of the people who complain about this sort of thing are hypocritical and this is no different.

This, right here, this hits the nail on the head.

It really is the epitome of hypocrisy when someone is complaining about being a victim for having their right to "freeze peach" infinged upon. That's just as much playing the victim as much as the the people they claim are playing the victim to supposedly deny rights to them are.

After reading the article, all I can say is that it's being totally dishonest in it's intentions as an observation on society. What I see is someone taking up the mantel of the old man standing on his lawn shaking a cane shouting "you damn kids". He's just taking up that mantle from someone he dismissed 20 years ago.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Voted "Yerrs."

Evenin', Usual Suspects. Glad to see we're all out in force, once again.

The article seems to be addressing the culture at large, which includes all sides of the political spectrum. But, yeah, the bit about the study involving only 104 people being used as any sort of evidence rubs me all kinda wrong ways.

Blow that out to a thousand or two and then we can talk.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Voted "Yerrs."

Evenin', Usual Suspects. Glad to see we're all out in force, once again.

The article seems to be addressing the culture at large, which includes all sides of the political spectrum. But, yeah, the bit about the study involving only 104 people being used as any sort of evidence rubs me all kinda wrong ways.

Blow that out to a thousand or two and then we can talk.

Think about this, the wording is important too. They asked if people felt that they had been treated "unfairly" or if they'd been "wronged". That's not the same as being victimized, but that's beside the fact of the matter, everyone is treated unfairly, or wronged at some point. Any answer that doesn't reflect that means either the person in question has had a very sheltered life, or that they're not being honest, and really he latter is more common than the former. Honestly, what they're doing is injecting the concept of victimization and distorting it for political terminology. So any study working in such a fashion is being patently dishonest.

Now find me a study where people that has people who honestly have been victims of discrimination, abuse, and crimes. That might actually mean something. The study we've been presented in that article is blatant in it's bias, any "results" are probably equally skewed by that bias.

 

[veloper]

Everyone is free to cry about hearing stuff they don't like to hear and call others a meanie over it, but the minute anyone seeks to restrict speech through laws is when they should be opposed.

The distinction between just complaining about stuff and being in favor of having actual shitty laws in place like in France, is crucial here.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Think about this, the wording is important too. They asked if people felt that they had been treated "unfairly" or if they'd been "wronged". That's not the same as being victimized, but that's beside the fact of the matter, everyone is treated unfairly, or wronged at some point. Any answer that doesn't reflect that means either the person in question has had a very sheltered life, or that they're not being honest, and really he latter is more common than the former. Honestly, what they're doing is injecting the concept of victimization and distorting it for political terminology. So any study working in such a fashion is being patently dishonest.

Now find me a study where people that has people who honestly have been victims of discrimination, abuse, and crimes. That might actually mean something. The study we've been presented in that article is blatant in it's bias, any "results" are probably equally skewed by that bias.

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this...Yuru Yuri S3 took a hold of my soul for a bit there.

[small]MoeAsFuckDood.[/small]

Ahem.

I take immediate issue with this interpretation on the grounds that the dictionary exists.

To be "victimized," you merely have to be wronged in some way or, if you're in a particularly frisky mood, feel that you've been wronged in some way. Nobody's arguing or diminishing the plight of victims of crimes, actual oppression, or something equally terrible.

And politicization of the word had already occurred well before this guy or his article.

It happened the first time somebody decided to co-opt a term meant, colloquially, to indicate a need for giving proper consideration/care to sufferers of crime/oppression/tragedy and turned it into "Coddle me, I got PTSD from Twitter."

With that said? The study's methodology seems fine. The idea is to see if people get more selfish or more apt to turn to inward concerns after being wronged or slighted in some way, ie. victimized. Which is a bit of a 'no shit' if you've ever actually interacted with other people before...and, yes, it's still the petty form of 'victimization' that we're talking about.

They just need a much, much, much bigger sample size. 104 is ridiculously small for something like that to be taken seriously, in any way.

Edit:

Reread this a couple more times and I think I sound a lot more harsh than I was intending. I like ya Kyuubi.

Didn't mean to come off like a dick. D:

 

[Dizchu]

Yes and no. Are there people that use "victimhood" as an excuse to lash out and restrict the rights of others? Certainly. Is this "victimhood culture" pernicious? Not at all.

Also these "victims" aren't necessarily the left-wing social justice types that people tend to whine about. They're usually religious right-wingers like that Josh Feuerstein asshole that thinks there'll be a Christian holocaust under Obama and Alex Jones who thinks that chemicals in the water "will turn us gay". These assertions have zero evidence to back them up, while things like violence towards black people, sexual assault, and yes, muh soggy knees are real things.

 

[Something Amyss]

However, I do have gay friends, so at least I'm not speaking for gay people. More speaking up for my friends, even if they don't know it ever happened.

I'm still not sure why it matters if you personally know any gay people when you are speaking to the facts of gay existence.

I mean, I don't have any black friends. I don't even know a lot of black people. I live in one of the whitest regions of the US and in one of the whitest communities in that region. Is there any reason I shouldn't speak up when an unarmed black person is shot in the back?

On the flip side, there are people within the LGBT community Ireally, really wish would shut up.

Yeah, I get safe places in the context of creating a place of refuge from potential social hazards, which I support. A shelter from severe social instability, and abuse, and such. There's one near where I work at the least.

It's the example in the article seemingly aimed at the idea that arguing against an idea that I was aiming at. I'd think something of a "democrat's club" might be a better name for a "safe space" that prevents republicans, and other parties from arguing, and vice versa. Bleh, I feel dirty bringing up politics, but it's based off something I can barely remember from a month, or two ago. I guess the term "safe place" is trendy, but it kinda hints that it aughta be safe for everyone in the area, and not just for a select few.

"Safe Space" is a term that's older than I am, so it's not really an issue of recency or trend. I also have a feeling that no matter how it was rebranded the same issue would be taken. In fact, we see the same sort of people complaining when free speech is restricted and then complaining when they can't restrict free speech. Neither using any meaningful definition of free speech, for the record, so maybe I should use scare quotes.

The point being that this is rooted in something deeper than the terminology: free speech for me, but don't you dare try and use the same. You have to grow thicker skin, but it's okay for me to be thin-skinned and brittle. If you don't take the crap I say with good humour, you are censoring me but if I don't like a single word you say, it's okay for me to have a temper tantrum. And don't you dare point out the hypocrisy, because you are then censoring and shaming me.

To continue the LGBT example, it is frequently a defended notion that it's okay for LGBT individuals to be excluded. But if LGBT groups are even perceived to be exclusionary, it's a bad thing. Hell, we don't even need to go far from this site's bread and butter. "Gaymer" (god, I hate that term, but whatever) cons are often accused of excluding heterosexuals. They don't--well, I can't say that there is no such thing as a "gaymer" con that discriminates, but the big ones of which I'm aware and the ones people normally complain about don't. Straight people are welcome.

It really is the epitome of hypocrisy when someone is complaining about being a victim for having their right to "freeze peach" infinged upon. That's just as much playing the victim as much as the the people they claim are playing the victim to supposedly deny rights to them are.

Yeah, it really is a damn shame that people can complain about their perceived treatment in a way that comes off as completely hypocritical when you look at how they view or treat others. It's even worse when people complain about this behaviour in others while doing it themselves. If only there was some way to get people to reflect on how their actions impact others in a way they would not themselves want to be impacted.

 

[runic knight]

Yes not just recognizing his claims as truth and not exaggeration is a clear sign of my bad faith. I'm glad you are here to tell us which of us are in speaking in good faith.

No, assuming malice where there was none is a representation of your bad faith. Misrepresenting it as doomsday predictions or pretending it was saying some other side was evil was representation of your bad faith. This passive aggressive reaction to having yourself corrected for outright being wrong in your assessment of the article (likely because you merely leaped off that bridge with everyone else, or simply didn't read that far into it) is representation of your bad faith.

I don't care if you agree with the article, but when you and others act like this because you disagree, you are demonstrating the point raised about how there is no allowance for a good faith disagreement anymore. You refused and still refuse to see the article as anything but an outright evil attack on your "us" from his "them". That is why I say you and others represent his point, because you are.

As for pretending it was aimed at 'proponents of victimhood culture', that's just a cop out. I'm not gonna pretend we don't know that it's an accusation aimed at people holding certain stances. Much like people crying about SJWs when people slap SJW as a label around like free candy. It's not just the dastardly boogeyman constructed that's being talked about, it's the people they slap the label on as an accusation or insult because they just know they're one and that's how they think.

Assuming malice and refusing to give any benefit of the doubt. Assuming motive and arguing entirely based on that assumption, instead of addressing actual points and thoughts raised. Interjecting your own baggage about the topic and refusing to accept even the possibility that this person who you disagree with has anything less than some malicious intent.

And that is the core thing, it isn't that you and others assumed the worst of the author immediately, it is that you outright refused to accept the possibility that such an assumption was wrong, to the point of aggravation at those who called such a view out, and that this view is all the justification needed to dismiss and ignore anything said instead of even trying to look at the topic in good faith, or simply letting others who were more willing to give it a fair shot do so without a page of snarky dismissal.

And it is hilarious to just take their accusation of others making it 'good vs evil' as true and at face value and then turning around and saying it must be bad faith if someone doubts their description of this other side.

What "others" are you talking about? What group of people did they refer to? What accusations of them are you talking about when the topic is one of general trends and differences between victim-hood itself and victim culture? Did you miss them taking shots at the conservatives too such as well as liberals such as the war on Christmas and the immigration thing? Are you so wrapped up in the "us versus them" kneejerk about the topic the article covers, you are outright inserting your own baggage on the topic into the article and then running with it? This is why I say this represents the point.

You are literally denying the possibility of good faith disagreement (in this case on behalf of the author) in order to champion against him like some great cause of justice done on the basis of a claim he is attacking your group when all he seems to have done is talked about difference between victimhood and victim culture and how victim culture is bad.

Oh and I'd say the way they portray the other side is far from 'good faith'.

Once again, what "other side"? They are talking about a trend in politics in general, and the predictions someone made back in the 90's. They are talking about a difference between vitcimhood and victim culture. I don't see them naming names or making sweeping accusations against groups. I see them mention examples from both sides of the political spectrum here, such as the Starbucks cup nonsense, and how both parties have embraced aspects of victim culture. I see them discussing the topic of victim culture itself and why it can be bad, and talking about how it was predicted. Hell, I even see them putting in conditioners to separate all people who are victims from the negativity of victim culture itself just so people don't mistake one for the other. Yet I've seen posters here ignore that distinction just fine.

But you didn't see any of that, or if you did, you simply didn't care enough about the fact it wasn't trying to be malicious when you and others stampeded towards presenting it that way. And that is why you prove my point. There was no good faith displayed in how you looked at the topic, there was no taking anything at face value. There was assumed malice, running with that assumed malice to pretend the author was attacking you or your group, and a lot of dismissive snark in this thread.

 

[Redd the Sock]

It's hard not to vote yes when reading these comments, all from people that love to criticize things in feminist and progressive lights, but hate having any criticism made of them. We're now at the victims of the victims of victim culture point.

While I meant that to be snarky, it is the crux of the issue: Fighting for the "oppressed" culturally is a get out of jail free card, enabling misinformation, disrespect for anyone you deem "oppressor", and the use of time and resources to fight relatively minor offenses over problems with more real impact. Yeah, hate me all you want, but with the protests a couple of months ago, aside from seeing tuition dollars being spent to protest rather than crack a book, saw a lot of time and media attention about a problematic e-mail and act of vandalism, rather than stock a food bank, donate blood, or address the poverty that will keep a lot of people of any subgrouping out of such institutes of higher learning. But they're "fighting racism" so you can't call them out if they're being dumbasses, solving nothing while pretending their hashtags, and cardboard signs are the key to changing the world, and acting in ways that make enemies of the minds they want to change rather than actually change a mind.

So at best nothing gets solved and enemies get made, while at worst someone's hyperbolic, unsourced "stufy" gets touted out to suspend things in the bill of rights in the name of protection. I worry more about the second, but still find the first more frustrating. My Mom worked in non-profit fundrasing for 25 years, and she had nothing but contempt for the type: people that want to do good, but only if it's fun, in their own time, and not a lot of work or with people they don't like. None of them could be counted on most of the time while her regulars were seniors on pensions, welfare recipients (many on disability), and other fundraisers trading favors (I'll do yours if you'll do mine). I see similar mindsets today, and see the larger issue: fighting more to justify how much good you think you're doing, rather than getting out to do it, hence a lot of people with legitimate need go without while people think they've done their part by bitching on a forum about some bikini armor and rubbeing the main character in the new Star Wars movie in peoples faces.

 

[Breakdown]

Has anybody actually read the article about conservatives being persecuted in academia? The author actually seems to be making the point that ideological diversity is beneficial and people tend to get lazy, make mistakes and fall victim to unconscious bias when they all think the same way.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Yeah, I get safe places in the context of creating a place of refuge from potential social hazards, which I support. A shelter from severe social instability, and abuse, and such. There's one near where I work at the least.

It's the example in the article seemingly aimed at the idea that arguing against an idea that I was aiming at. I'd think something of a "democrat's club" might be a better name for a "safe space" that prevents republicans, and other parties from arguing, and vice versa. Bleh, I feel dirty bringing up politics, but it's based off something I can barely remember from a month, or two ago. I guess the term "safe place" is trendy, but it kinda hints that it aughta be safe for everyone in the area, and not just for a select few.

"Safe Space" is a term that's older than I am, so it's not really an issue of recency or trend. I also have a feeling that no matter how it was rebranded the same issue would be taken. In fact, we see the same sort of people complaining when free speech is restricted and then complaining when they can't restrict free speech. Neither using any meaningful definition of free speech, for the record, so maybe I should use scare quotes.

The point being that this is rooted in something deeper than the terminology: free speech for me, but don't you dare try and use the same. You have to grow thicker skin, but it's okay for me to be thin-skinned and brittle. If you don't take the crap I say with good humour, you are censoring me but if I don't like a single word you say, it's okay for me to have a temper tantrum. And don't you dare point out the hypocrisy, because you are then censoring and shaming me.

To continue the LGBT example, it is frequently a defended notion that it's okay for LGBT individuals to be excluded. But if LGBT groups are even perceived to be exclusionary, it's a bad thing. Hell, we don't even need to go far from this site's bread and butter. "Gaymer" (god, I hate that term, but whatever) cons are often accused of excluding heterosexuals. They don't--well, I can't say that there is no such thing as a "gaymer" con that discriminates, but the big ones of which I'm aware and the ones people normally complain about don't. Straight people are welcome.

Huh, I hadn't really heard of it until like 2015. Seemed new to me, and when people glommed on to it, seemed like a trendy new thing.

I certainly can't argue with what you said. The people that feel they're higher in society want to impose their will on everyone they deem inferior, and get insulted when they can't.
They also get insulted when those they deem inferior try to do anything to change the perspective of those who see themselves as superior, seemingly no matter what. They want the world they see as theirs, and don't want anyone else even attempting to get any sort of foothold that might elevate them to anything.