I first noticed this at NBC Sports' Hardball Talk, when top blogger Craig Calcaterra blogged last week about Dirk Hayhurst's confession to "something" when he was in the minor leagues. I commented there, and ultimately blogged, that things weren't as open and shut as some claimed, and that, for all we know, Hayhurst is the next Chad Curtis waiting to explode. At the least, I said, he's affecting to be the next Jim Bouton, with the addition of a social justice warrior type of martyrdom.
Well, I and others who questioned details of his account, or details of male-female behavior in relation to sexual liaisons, the effects of alcohol and more — with things like a national online media column explaining young female sobriety as a preventative without letting men and men's responsibility off the hook — and got flamed by a couple of people.
That said, per that alcohol discussion, my updating of someone else's work, as shown at right, needs posting here, too, I think. Not just for SJWs in general, but per some of the discussion on Craig's Dirk Hayhurst piece.
And, when one commenter trotted out the "mansplaining," I said, I'm outta here. More on mansplaining right here.
Well, said person showed up again last night, on Craig's post about Kim Ng's attempt to become a general manager, in this case of the Padres, which she didn't get.
First, as for SJWs who question my own liberality, I don't normally do the "some of my best friends are black" schtick, but, I'm going to pull one of my comments from the piece:
She entered the Yankees front office in the late 1990s. Interviewed to run the Dodgers while an assistant there. Was a finalist for Seattle.And there you go. And, as I also noted, I think she's qualified enough to be a baseball GM.
The one way to tell for sure if she’s qualified?
Double-blinded interviews, where she’s behind a screen and her voice is disguised.
And, no, that’s not joking. That’s how major orchestras hire instrumentalists, after allegations of sexual discrimination in hiring.
But, at the same time, even though the apparent SJW in question hadn't directly fired at me this time, she had on the Hayhurst piece, so I decided I'd be a bit pre-emptive.
I was led to that idea by another commenter saying he wanted to make an SJW-related addition to Godwin's Law:
"As an online discussion of race/class/gender issues grows longer, the probability that 'white male privilege' will be invoked approaches 1."Sounds about right.
So here's my add-on response to "Whatacrocker," also serving as a cut-off response to "Fearless."
You forgot to add that the likelihood of some neologism ending with #splaining entering the conversation will also approach 1.And, that's about it.
And that the likelihood that any objection to that will be held against you in a social justice warrior court of non-law will also approach 1.
Fearless? Save it, please. Remove the martyr’s back of hand from your forehead. I’ve met plenty of SJWs in the courts of Gnu Atheism/Atheism Plus. You’re probably small fry compared to some I’ve tangled with.
And, on issues like true freedom of thought?
You’re just not that liberal.
Get over it, and yourselves.
Or don’t. You make few converts that way, though, like other JWs, the ones who knock on my door every week, SJWs get to reinforce their own martyrdom.
No, that's not about it. Let me remind the SJWs that they can lie just as much as anybody else.
No, that's not even close to it.
I've apparently hit a nerve with "Fearless," who on Twitter said she obviously hit a nerve with me. To which, I responded:
Again, and you chose to comment on that fact? Nerves, pots, kettles, and self-righteousness, perhaps?It soon may be time to fill in the SJW stereotype blanks. I've had my one response and don't need more, other than to note that "Fearless" had more than 140 characters for unpacking the "rich and delightful web of issues" when she commented on Craig's two posts.
And chose not to.
To put this more directly, in SJW words, casual use of words like "mansplaining" is stereotyping and labeling, things the likes of you allegedly abhor. I do hope that, in my ongoing Twitter exchange with "Fearless," that came through without (too much) snark, etc., on my part. Maybe, to be generous, some people don't recognize that they're engaging in labeling and stereotyping. Being less generous, without being harsh, I pretty much doubt that, though.
I don't know if Craig is himself a full-on, or even half-on, social justice warrior, but, I think at a minimum that he's the type that could go weak in the knees for them. Which I can accept, should he not go down their rabbit trail in attempts to stifle discourse. Massimo Pigliucci discusses in detail this issue, which is of course one of the biggest problems with the SJW movement.
That said, we'll see if he's any more tolerant than the Orwellians at MLBTradeRumors.