Yet another rant.
I think that ranting is counter-productive to discussion because it generally means that you just want to be understood.
But then I immediately felt a strong sense of shame, and a compulsion to add - "Not As Bad. My problems are Not As Bad as those girls."
...
And anyway, why does it matter? It's not like I'm going around and saying "I survived a thought experiment in which I was asked out, therefore sexism isn't really a problem." Why would I feel the need to say that?
Have you noticed that you are discussing your own reactions? I mean that's fine and all, but I'm a little skeptical of points that seem to say "I feel X, therefore Y is true because Y -> X", because it doesn't actually show that Y is true, that Y->X is true, or hell even that X is true. Maybe you're just a guilty personality?
After a few moments of pondering, the answer seemed obvious - because of my peers.
I'm noticing a lot of "seems" and "feels" and "appears" in your rant. Why is it because of your peers? Why not your parents, or TV, or the internet, or that upperclassmen that picked on you in third grade?
There is not a significant difference between "make a speech in your head" and "talk online to people."
Citation needed?
There's no such thing as interruption, so the minor difference between "headspeech" and "RLspeech" is gone.
Citation most certainly needed.
So it is quite plausible that the same policing tendencies might be present in both.
Again with the "plausible". Not to accuse you of anything, but you realize that those are weasel words, right? You are just worming your way out of making a definite statement.
Why couldn't I say "this is similar to what girls experience" on Reddit without the qualifier of NAB?
I don't know, why can't you? Have you tried it out?
I can't really imagine how somebody could misinterpret it, but I'd bet a grand someone would. (If I had a grand, which I don't.)
So you haven't tried it out, is what you are saying. Perhaps you might want to actually make such an experiment, and
then ask the people who misinterpret you what they thought you meant?
But why is that necessary?
Nothing is necessary in a vacuum. Necessary is useful when given qualifiers, i.e. "Necessary to get 100 coins to unlock the bonus level".
If I have slipped on the ice and fallen on my posterior and hurt myself, I will say "ouch." I will say "we should clear this ice." I will get the salt. I will not say "but of course, this isn't as bad as poor John who sprained his ankle on the ice."
Can we imagine situations where that isn't true? Perhaps John needs medical attention and you don't, and you want people to help John instead of worrying about you.
Well, it's necessary because some people seem to enjoy interpreting men in the worst light that they possibly can.
Necessary for what? Who is "some people"? Where did they come in? Are they on reddit, or elsewhere? Are they just imagined representations of someone? Why do you know what they enjoy doing? And why do you care?
Yes, this isn't just about social justice. This is a general problem for all groups.
But what is a problem for all groups? The fact that some people hate men? The fact that you are scared of posting on reddit? I don't get it.
Since just because you have a point, it doesn't mean you are right.
What?? I kind of get the rest of your post, and I agree; also keep in mind that I was not responding directly to you. You probably inspired me, that's all.
A point is not the end-point of an argument, but a single part of it. In regards to this rant though, I'd argue you have a point, but no argument to support it.
Social justice in general has some bigger flaws than "some feminists are corrupt". Take, for instance, how any CEO/manager/whatsit who criticizes gay marriage gets pressure to resign. Take the mayor who accidentally seemed slightly racist, and subsequently resigned. Take the motte-and-baileys. We have some big problems, and they won't get fixed if criticism is suppressed.
I would imagine that people who resign probably would also resign if they said anything politically unpopular. That's just the nature of being the public face of a company. You don't get to say whatever you want. I don't see why it is necessarily true that because a CEO cannot criticize whatever he wants, that criticism is necessarily being supressed. You'd have to make the argument that no one else is criticizing them, or that CEO's are the people who are supposed to criticize and thus their supression is an attack on that.
A vote in favor of not-suppressing-criticism, and instead suppressing prejudice!
How is anyone supposed to know what is criticism and what is predjudice if the difference apparently depends on how you, personally, feel about it?