and adding massive edits to your posts long after someones already replied to them just makes you look even worse

I was only rehashing information present in my first comment (I mean, all but one sentence of my edit was literally lifted from the first comment), so it's not as if you never had a chance to respond to those specific points. I realized about 15 minutes after posting the original comment that your ignoring me in favour of just "outing" me as an "SJW" was sort of funny given what you were responding to, and I thought the point was too good/humourous to not make.

What's more, you've now had two chances to respond to my argument (this'll be your third), and you've passed on both, so what difference does it make if you missed my edit? I have a hard time believing that, had you seen the edit, you'd have even taken the opportunity to address it. I mean, to back this point: 1) you didn't address it when you first had a chance, 2) you didn't address it in your edit (it seems you aren't above editing posts to save face), and 3) when you addressed another post of mine two days ago, you insulted me and claimed there was a "much better explanation" of racial crime rates than the historical-political/economic explanation I provided, but of course, when pressed, you couldn't tell me what this "much better explanation" was, and you bowed out of the conversation altogether.

It seems you aren't in the habit of providing or countering arguments, but are more prone to swooping into a thread, getting in a quick insult, and popping out just as quickly. So again, what does it matter if you did or did not see my edit?

look even worse

I want to address this quickly, because I think it furthers my point. See, my comments in this thread have been pretty tame and sparing in the use of rhetoric (no insults, no fallacies, etc.), and my point on the meaning/use of the term "SJW" is more an uncontroversial point about semiotics/pragmatics/implicature than it is a defense of whatever you think "SJWs" are (I mean, like I said, my point stands for words like "hipster" or "neckbeard," and I'd argue it applies to words like "terrorist," "liberal," "republican," "communist," etc.). This is to say, my actual point had to do with linguistics, not with social justice.

So could you explain why, despite my relatively polite behavior and my fairly uncontroversial argument, you've approached me as if I stomped in here and flung digital shit on the digital walls? I'm willing to bet I only looked bad to begin with because you're incapable of addressing me as anything but some sort of imaginary "SJW" archetype, and, again, this more or less plays into the point I made about the use of the term. So, for you, it doesn't matter what I said, or even how I said it; my point is moot, because you've got a list of "SJWs" using words like "cracker" - how very rational.