But isn't that the crux of the "anti-SJW" argument? That SJWs get outraged too easily?

There is a vast, enormous difference between:

• SJWs "getting outraged too easily" by straining to read implications into the words of others, or at their refusal to phrase certain concepts in the currently acceptable ('politically correct') vocabulary; and

• anti-SJWs objecting to the systematic, intentional redefinition of words to create muddy arguments that draw power from emotional connotations; to the harassment - legal and otherwise - of countless individuals for their beliefs, or for simple statements or actions perceived to express those beliefs, or some weird strawman version of those beliefs (see: Brad Wardell, Gregory Alan Elliott, Matt Taylor, , Curtis Yarvin, Brendan Eich, I could go on...); to campaigns seeking increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and increasing government intervention to ensure compliance (see: title IX in the US); to the increasing social acceptability of statements targeting the "privileged" group (who are, incidentally, a clear statistical minority once you factor in all the "axes of intersectionality"); and to direct insults, or even calls for violence, targeted at them specifically.

Like, on one side of the fence you have people literally claiming to have developed PTSD as a result of their Twitter usage, or who run crying after their deliberate provocations draw hateful reactions (some of whom can get a sympathetic mass-media ear as a result); on the other side you have people who think that genocidal rhetoric directed at their kind isn't cool, even if it isn't a legitimate threat, and doesn't stop being uncool simply because of what some academic framework claims about power and society (never mind direct observation of how society actually works). And then you're trying to equivocate the second group "getting defensive and feeling shamed" to the "outrage" felt by the first group?

Please.