For those of you who haven't read Sullivan's article, it can be found here. I suggest reading it, but not just for you to have an idea of what I'm responding to. True, it would help to know the biggest picture possible, but the real reason I recommend Sullivan's article is because it's a fantastic piece about a popular addiction to outrage.
Sullivan talks about how people are quick to attack someone, almost on reflex, by calling them sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. in an attempt to shut down valid conversation. He did a fantastic job describing this. However, I want to address something that I think Sullivan, and many others, are missing. That is: why people fall into these self righteous views in the first place.
Before I begin, let me differentiate between the many people on the internet who need clearly defined targets to aim their perpetual outrage at. These people can't do much harm if us sane, rational human being ignore them. Those aren't the people I wish to address. The people I wish to address are the ones who genuinely believe they're in the right to call out someone's "hate" (which is usually purposefully misinterpreting what someone is saying as racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.). Currently, this is seen most commonly in the people fighting for social equality.
Now, as many people are aware, there is the term "social justice" floating around on the internet. Most of what I've seen pertaining to social justice goes along the lines of something like this: "I think social justice warrior is a cool term. Who wouldn't want to fight for social justice? Literally everyone benefits from it." For those of you who have read my blog post about rabbit holes in human thinking, you know that I'm about to rip this to shreds.
Isn't it a remarkable coincidence how everyone is a victim fighting oppression, or speaking up against oppression on the behalf of victims? (When you see these people, ask them which victims specifically they're defending and which oppressors exactly they're fighting. I guarantee they won't be able to give you a clearly defined answer for either.) People have a bad habit of putting themselves on the side of the greater good and equality (absolute good) and they're opposition on the side of oppressors and tyrants (absolute bad). When people get into this mindset of absolutes, it's easy to shrug off your own behavior. Good and evil are relative terms; neither is an absolute and neither can be clearly defined. People seem to forget that everyone thinks they're the benefactor in their own minds. No side goes into an issue or conflict thinking they're the ones at fault.
Another flaw is how people see themselves as heroes and knights in shining armor, and in doing so they fall all over themselves to help others. It's an elitist, condescending viewpoint to think it's necessary for you to stand up for someone. For example: I am pansexual and have high functioning autism. People have breathlessly said how saying the words "faggot" and "retard" are hurtful to people like me and how it hurts nobody if they don't say the words. Yet when I say it doesn't bother me and that they shouldn't worry so much about what someone on the internet says, it's a surprise to them that I can manage my own feelings as well as offer comfort. Some people have a nasty habit of looking down on the people they're trying to help, and this fuels their self righteous behaviors even more. This also makes the people who actually are helping look bad. (It would be nice that people want to help me if they weren't so surprised in my ability to do mundane things. Thanks for applying to me the very double standards you are supposedly fighting against, you insufferable cretins.)
When people put themselves into the mindset of "I'm fighting oppression" they also make it easy to dig their heels in on issues or have a predetermined conclusion of what they want to achieve. Either of those two routes they take, they ignore contradicting evidence, logical rebuttals, and dissenting views when they fall into this mindset. (But don't just take my word for it! I'm a sophomore in college blogging about my political and social stances to an audience that isn't even in the 4 digits. Why not see what professionals have said about this issue here and here?) They head on a one-way course to not only self-destruction, but also setting back the end goals they hoped to achieve for social issues. For example: There are so many feminists addicted to outrage that it now needs to be differentiated between the feminists who actually respect women and the feminists who patronize women as victims. This tunnel vision can destroy any movement. As Serj Tankien has put it: Trust in my self-righteous suicide.
Now at first glance, it seems a bit drastic to say that people are suicidal when their motives are social justice and the greater good. But when the equality movement is as out of control as it currently is, whipping up shitstorm after shitstorm on the internet, there is no better description of their efforts than suicidal. People fall down, down, down into rabbit holes of thinking while attempting to drag as many others with them as possible. Dissenting viewpoints (which are a crucial component of diversity) are being withheld because people are too afraid of offending someone and coming under attack. As Sullivan said, "This should be called out for what it is: a full-scale assault on the integrity and freedom of writers in the name of social liberalism."
