A lot of people are constantly looking for a reason to get angry about something. It is not exactly a recent thing that I have seen, but there are three examples off the top of my head of comparisons that these people don’t “get”.
A. Skittles/M&Ms that represent refugees.
This is a pretty easily recognized concept. Everyone seems to think it started with Presidential Hopeful Donald Trump’s son. It didn’t, in fact before Jr used the example, it wasn’t Skittles, it was M&Ms, and back in November 2015 Mike Huckabee used Peanuts. There was outrage then, and there’s outrage now.
B. Bleach, Coke and Water
This one might not be so well known, but it illustrates the problem: You take a cup of coke, a cup of water and a cup of bleach, and you label them after their colors. Water-You; Coca-Cola-Sin; Bleach-Christ. Pouring the coke into the Bleach, the coke is non-existant. If you pour the coke into the water, it becomes dark. Pouring the bleach into the water and coke mixture, it disappears, and when you pour it into the coke, it takes awhile, but the coke becomes clear. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkfH8cmt5QI)
C. Gumballs, Ping-Pong Balls, Marbles
You can use a number of small spherical representations for numbers. In this case, it was gum balls, to demonstrate an issue with helping people that live in poverty stricken areas of the world. The professor takes a bunch of gum balls and demonstrate what the numbers of people that make less than $2 a day across the world. He goes on to explain that we’re taking what we consider a large number of people into our own country. Well, just watch, it’s easier for you to understand than me write it all out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDceLiPLHWQ
I’ve seen the same argument for all three of these: This isn’t how things work! We aren’t inanimate objects. No, we aren’t Skittles, Gumballs, Ping-pong balls or even water filled with coke. We are people, but what these SJWs are missing is something they should have learned in school: These are nothing more than visual aides. A means of conveying a message in a way you can understand the message better.
What I find ironic, is that these very same people on my own friends list that detest these metaphors (rather than the argument), are the same ones that love the old Zen story of a guy visiting a master to learn about the person’s path. But when the guy starts talking about all he knows, the Zen Master begins to pour a cup of tea until it overflows, and then explains that the man is the cup, while the master is the one that holds a particular type of “tea”.
If you don’t like being compared to inanimate objects, you probably aren’t ready for any deep level of philosophy that has made the world a better place. If you can’t understand that something is a metaphor and not literal, you should go back to your grade school teachers and ask them why they failed you.
When you can accept that inanimate objects are great for metaphors to explain someone’s points, then you can begin arguing against the points they make. An example is that when someone tried to use the M&Ms argument against Syrian Refugees, an artist released a cartoon explaining that the other 90% of the M&Ms were the antidote. Essentially going with the Malala argument that the only way to combat the terrorist threat is by doing all we can to help those who are or stand to be victimized by terrorism.