Mostly in the college setting where I was effectively told . . .
See, I've been around the college setting more than a time or two -- especially the humanities, where critiques of white male privilege are likeliest to happen -- and I've seen the kind of arguments that get summarized this way. And I've seen how often those summaries are actually incompetent, kneejerk defensive, unfair, nonsensical or even just flat-out lies... and how often their authors then have the nerve to complain about other
people being shrill and irrational.
Now, whether or not you're actually doing any of that I can't know. One time in a hundred there actually may be
someone literally saying "white male = eeevil." It happens just often enough to be theoretically in the realm of possibility. But let's just say I'm very, very skeptical. The number of times I see this claimed
to have supposedly happened to a white guy -- who also just happens by the way to think, or imply, that criticizing sexism in comics (just for example) is vicious abuse -- is wildly disproportionate to the amount of times it is likely to have actually happened. And I have
seen how you reached far too easily, with far too little cause, for the "you're just being shrill and irrational" cudgel in this context.
Somehow I doubt Martin Luther King would wish to subject me to violence because I disagree with you in a debate.
Yes, Tairis, it's what we call a figure of speech.
But I refer to the comparison as the Godwin's law of these debates
... because you're not paying attention to whether people are proposing learning from the tactics of the CRM and whether they're claiming their circumstances are equivalent. And having failed to pay that attention, you're complaining about other
people's rationality. Between this kind of carelessness and your constant strawmanning, which Ephiral has already pointed out... well, I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that you're not truly interested in rational debate. But I would
say that you present the picture of a man ignorant of the fact that he's the problem (or at minimum of the ways in which he's contributing to the problem).
Basically, next time you want to wade in and accuse people of being shrill and irrational, have better reasons for doing so than you did when you tried it on this thread. You might get a more sympathetic response.
(I'd just be repeating the above points to most of the remainder of your post, so I'll leave this at that.)