he's talking about social justice movements as a whole, and the mindsets that are common throughout them.
These mindsets are common throughout any 'monolithic' community. If anything, the 'social justice communities' he's describing are reactionary to the oppressive societal structures that have been using the exact same oppressive tactics for decades.
I mean, come on, would you say this about Stormfront?
I'd be interested to find a medium where racists are disagreeing with one another, challenging one another's views, allowing their own views to be challenged by outside sources, or fairly participating in conversations where they do not control the discussion.
Would you say it about gay-bashing Xbox voicecom ragers? Neckbearded anti-feminists?
ME:
GamerGate and the Men's Rights movement
YOU:
This is bogus and so far out in wrong-territory it's not worth addressing
If it's so wrong, feel free to point out why. Otherwise you're guilty of the exact same tactics the author mentions - e.g. painting me with a label I can't defend.
It's strange that you even bring these things up, since Scott made no mention of them and doesn't back either of these camps
You can't shit on SJ communities without mentioning the reasons those communities exist!
If you can't adequately address a criticism of social justice without baselessly attacking two other unrelated groups
The rise of online SJ as a concept, and the pejorative "SJW" was a direct result of GamerGate, which is conceptually tied to MRA and their reaction to the rise of feminist critique of misogynist gaming tropes.
These things have nothing to do with what he's talking about.
Absolutely false. Do you think SJ is a thing now for no reason?
"If you can't defend yourself" is exactly the thing he is talking about.
Do you find yourself having to defend against accusations of being racist or sexist often? I don't. What is there even to defend? Some anonymous stranger says you're sexist because you posted Princess Leia in her slave outfit? Who gives a fuck?
defend themselves against slander or abuse.
Being accused of sexism or racism is not slander or abuse. You are sensationalizing exactly the same way Scott claims SJs do.
That scenario goes one way
Every argument 'goes one way' on the internet. There are no rules. There is no incentive to reconsider your position. If you can't refute a point, you just go to a different forum with more support for your position. Racists / sexists loudly, obnoxiously insist they're not sexist. SJW's loudly/obnoxiously insist they are. The problem is inherently with online debate, not with any particular group.
The kinds of people Scott is talking about are the people who throw around words like they can invent the meanings after the words land, arbitrarily assigning meaning to them once they see how that meaning will be most beneficial
This has nothing to do with SJ and everything to do with how argument on the internet works - or rather, doesn't. EVERYONE is guilty of this, which is why his 'very clear' assessment and the 'problems' associated with their tactics is simply another dog-whistle partisan call to arms.
If you're not guilty of the same 1984-ish tactics that he's talking about, then don't take offense.
Referring back to one of your first statements:
You may find it insulting that he lumps these people together as one monolithic thing
Not particularly either of these. Scott is well-written, which hides the fact that he's still attacking social justice across the board for the actions of online communities - while ignoring the fact that those communities and their '1984-ish' tactics are a direct response to real, actual oppression. Women are raped and murdered because of actual sexism and misogyny. Minorities are abused and killed because of actual racism. Yet rather than addressing how SJ and the average anti-racist anti-sexist can work together, he complains about being unfairly persecuted for being racist and sexist, and attacking SJ. If he (and you) don't like the way SJs argue, then stop fucking arguing with them.
In my 11 years of experience, I've not once met a social justice crusader who is fair and level headed enough to sit and listen to someone
Replace '11' with '20+' and 'social justice crusader' with '95% of humanity' and you might understand why I see his specific targeting of SJW's as having the usual persecution complex and axe to grind about being called out. Even if you're not racist or sexist, if you defend racists and sexists, you're in their damn camp.