How fragile and frail the pride that suggests being called a racist is worse than being considered subhuman, being blocked from exercising your civil liberties by impositions of law, being murdered on the street.

There are so many inconsistancies and misunderstandings in your various replies to people that I half-believe they are intentional, either a sly redirecting of the points of others to confuse them for your argument’s advancement or an “innocent and wide-eyed” facade over blatant trolling. Now, feel free to play the outrage trumpet over these declarations; the following explanations are free.

Here… let us begin.

“Homophobia” — A catchall term used to signify a dislike for people of different sexual orientations. Related to actual phobias in that those averse tend to avoid the subject of their “phobia” beyond need, in this case going so far as to legislate against it. Some responses are so extreme I’d think the line here between “stubborn cultural stagnation” and “anxiety disorder” has blurred and some people are textbook phobic on top of mere bigotry. Conjecture there. Like the disorder phobia, however, homophobia is remedied by exposure — generally speaking, having actual prolonged human contact with actual human homosexual/queer individuals can reduce homophobia. Try it today.

“The Open Violence of Leftists” — this one is a bit more complex than the above “misunderstanding” — rather than merely overlooking the true state of things — as you do above by using a definition of homophobia that no one intends when using the term — here you point to what appears to be true on the surface. “Progressive protesters break the law, they use violence.” — why can you make that statement? Protests made against Milo, for BLM, rallies for progressive causes have created tension and escalated to violence. Factual. Was this illegal? Certainly. It seems strange here that you willfully ignore that this illegal violence is generaly a response to the legalized violence perpetrated against the communities in question; the legitimization of black bodies being murdered by police with nearly no repurcussion — the legitimization, as with Yiannopoulos, of a bend of white supremacy that calls back to times when individuals who were people of color were exterminated. A rise in hate crimes that is not directly tied to the individuals speaking — — you have a pushback of violence against violence. It seems here that, so long as the violence is legal, or disconnected from those who encourage it you are alright with it. Easily throwing down the smoke bomb of “oh, Yiannopolous HIMSELF didn’t commit any crime, so his hate-mongering is harmless.” or “Well the individual officers involved were exonerated/punished (generally lightly), justice has been done! It doesn’t speak to the state of our entire justice system that blacks are overly policed, incarcerated, and injured..” Legality of course is hazy, considering the Gerrymandering of our districts to concentrate political control in the hands of the conservatives.

tl;dr

Consider this gentle “critique” of your writing style — you seem to blithely ignore the point the other person is trying to make. You bring up these ideas that are not necessarily theirs (arguing against your own misunderstanding of the word “homophobia”)— dress a shoddy imitation of the idea up in borrowed clothes , and then beat the idea up. The fallacy is a Straw Man, but it is coupled with a few others. If you’re not a provacatuer I recommend you give your text a look. It’s got a few examples of sidling and appears to the practiced eye to be either A) Willfully Ignoring Valid Points to “Defeat” Incomplete Arguments B) Malicious Provacatuership

The third option, C), “The Brash and Forward Trampling of Someone Who Does Not Pause to Consider Fully Their Own Argument or the Arguments of Others” is of course the ‘least’ harmful, and yet..