John Oliver condemns online harassment, the Internet responds predictably

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

He really meant well, but Sarkeesian, no matter what you think of her, is too toxic to use an example regardless.

This. Same goes for Wu. John Oliver chose possibly the worst two people for his examples he could have.

If he had used examples that were fine, upstanding, and uncontroversial, the segment would have had no point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And this thread is amply demonstrating the reason why this segment is so valuable.

SJWs are the bane of man. John Oliver deserves everything he gets.

Using the term SJW as a negative is one of those things, like a Confederate flag signature, that indicates that the person has nothing to say worth listening to.

Comparing a literal symbol of secession and figurative emblem of racism to a internet slang about overzealous bloggers is a massive hyperbole even by Atlas standards.

Bashing "social justice" sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of social injustice. I'm puzzled and a bit saddened that we've gotten to the point where a large segment of society is so twisted that it regards social justice and advocacy for it as a negative.

SJWs have nothing to do with actual social justice. They are a group of misanthropic fiends that attack anyone who doesn't tow the PC line, and invent ridiculous terms like "cis scum" and "ableist".

The ones who are actually "fiendish" are few and far between, most of them don't actually use the term "cis scum" except in irony. Ableist is used more often, but depending on the context, might actually be accurate.

Yeah, I don't understand how it's possible to deny in good faith that physical and mental disability are axes of oppression and discrimination.