Why Are The Puppies So Angry?

Via a circuitous route, I came across this series of videos explaining Gamergate. They run for almost an hour, so summary is difficult, but they are highly relevant to Le Affaire Puppie, so I'll take a stab at summary.

First, one must understand that there really are two groups of Puppies - Sad and Rabid. The Rabids really are racist, sexist and just want to torch the Hugos. The problem is they are hiding in, if not a sea, a large lake of Sads, who think they're the Good Guys. So why do the Sads think that?

Well, the Sads define sexism as rape or blatant sexual harassment (sleep with me and I'll give you a raise) and racism as burning a cross in somebody's yard. This is clearly bad in (nearly) everybody's mind, and people who do stuff like that should be shamed, shunned or jailed.

But since they, the Sads, didn't do anything so overt, they, the Sads, can't be sexist / racist. Not only didn't the Sads do anything so overt, they usually haven't even seen such overt activity. They operate in a bubble in which life is, if not perfect, pretty good.

But along comes somebody who's seen the less overt forms of sexism or racism. The "you're emotional - is it that time of the month?" or getting pulled over for driving while black. This upsets the Sads - it implies that they've been walking around with blinders on. Even worse, some of these less-blatant things are the sort of acts that everybody, even "Social Justice Warriors," have done from time to time.

Yet the Sads can't or don't want to accept the idea that they've been wrong, or worse, that they may harbor racist / sexist tendencies. After all, only Bad People do that, and Bad People get shamed, shunned or jailed. So, more-or-less elaborate defense mechanisms are developed. The Sads don't want to loose their innocence.

What's curious is why the Sads associate with the clearly "out and proud" Rabids. In fairness to the Sads, part of the answer is that the Rabids stole this whole operation like Sean Connery stole every scene in The Untouchables. The other part of the answer is that the Rabids are telling the Sads what the later want to hear - a fairy tale of conspiracy and oppression, in which the Sads are the Good Guys.

Also, the two groups need each other. Criticize a Sad, he claims you're against him because you're unfairly tying him to the Rabids. Criticize a Rabid, and a bunch of Sads demand proof. They provide mutual support.

Lastly, the Sads have a different approach to debate. Every (or at least most) statements made are supposed to be the last word in the argument before the Sad closes the door and leaves. Any counterarguments are seen as the critic dragging the Sad back into the debate.

This is a short summary. If you have the time, go watch the videos. Any errors or misrepresentations are my own.