Slightly off-topic, but you have an interesting point. People need to stop getting so butt hurt if they don't have any direct reason to be. The ultra-sensitive person you are referring to used to be what was meant by "SJW." People overreacting to a perceived injustice where none existed. For instance my brother gets offended when people use the word "waitress." That's just stupid; nobody cares. (Of course, he could have been feigning offense just to elicit laughs... not sure.)
In fact, sometimes the overreaction is more offensive than the actual original event. For instance, when Trump used the perfectly acceptable phrase "blood coming out of her eyes" to mean "very angry and agressive" (which I think comes from horned toads), he became unsure of his usage and changed it to "wherever." It was pretty clear he was just not sure what the correct idiom was, and didn't want to sound stupid for getting it wrong. Unfortunately, SJW's assumed he was talking about menstruation. Nobody (at least not any guy) was thinking that, until the press started saying it. I'll bet Trump was just as surprised as anybody at the interpretation they put on his words. While Trump said some pretty horrible things over the course of the campaign, this was clearly an overblown response by people trying to make him look bad. (before you accuse me of any sort of ideology, please go through my post history)
The problem is that right-wing nut jobs like my buddy now use "SJW" to refer to anybody who disagrees with him on a social issue, or sometimes as a mythical straw man. That has made people like me become averse to the pejorative sense of the abbreviation. In fact, since it has taken on the broader meaning of "not an asshole," I gladly embrace the label. I've even posted on Slashdot that people should strive to become warriors for social justice. It's sort of like the opposite of what happened to the word "hacker." It used to have a good connotation, and now it has a bad one.
Now there is a caveat. It's something that caught me rather by surprised. Apparently there is a sizeable portion of the population who "just roll with it" even though they are deeply offended. I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm about to go way off the rails, so bear with me. I heard a story about a lady who did studies on people who cat call. One of the reasons they continue doing it is because nobody -- literally nobody -- has ever told them they were offended by it. He considered himself to be paying them a compliment. Whereas the women interviewed in the study were afraid to confront the people catcalling because the majority of them thought that would lead to physical or sexual assault. How fucked up is that. You have two people, both of them making terribly wrong assumptions about the state of mind of the other person. Honestly, I don't know which one I find more offensive: that guys think cat-calling is a legit compliment, or that a majority of women think random Joe-on-the-street wants to rape them. Like I said, I'm off the rails... sorry.
I guess the upshot is that maybe SJW's feel like they see an injustice somebody else is unwilling to talk about. Maybe the best answer is to have an open conversation with people that share different world views. See if your $MINORITY$ friend really has a problem with $PERCEIVED_INJUSTICE$, then act accordingly.
You know it's possible for a website to serve any image to you computer, right? Some older web browsers would save those files as images in a folder whether you wanted it to or not. One of my coworkers had an unfortunate incident image searching a pillow block bearing, and when he later went to back up his computer to the company server, he inadvertently copied a whole host of unsavory (but not illegal) thumbnails. None of this was done by malware. It was 100% human interaction. Had one of the images been illegal, it would have been trivial for a prosecutor to show that he had "ownership" of the material, since he had to log into a password protected computer to move the files.
The bigger problem is that people have to prove their innocence these days. In Houston a guy was arrested on meth charges for having a sock full of kitty litter in his car. This poor bastard spent time in jail while the whole mess was sorted out. When prospective employers google his name, his arrest on drug charges shows up as the first dozen hits. (analogy would be if it were his auto repair shop that called the cops)
This whole country has become so ass-backwards when it comes to people's understanding of burden of proof. It's impossible to prove a negative. Hell, I can't even prove there's no bits on this computer that couldn't be misconstrued as CP. Let's see: one of my best friends from high school is on the sex offender list, I went to church with a guy that just got convicted of producing CP, a family member has been fired from a child care facility, and I am reading this article on how to evade getting caught by the FBI. Yup, I'm definitely a suspect. Better lock me up for life!
- It's one-sided -- no one posts about the totally uninteresting, crappy boring parts of their lives. Unless you're rich beyond imagination or a celebrity, everyone will have down moments in their lives, periods of disappointment, and very sad things happen to them.
I remember back in the early aughts, when MySpace was still a thing. It seemed like you were just as likely to read an insightful post from an old high school friend about their struggle with cancer, or the mundane aspects of child rearing, or some inane rambling about traffic or global warming. There wasn't the focus on spinning oneself in a positive light. There was even a guy that would post anytime he had a particularly interesting poop (so maybe not civil conversation, but definitely not self-aggrandizing).
Also, I would posit that the ridiculously wealthy also have down moments.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker