>>87458
>You really don't read the entirety of posts do you?
It's three sentences- if I didn't bother to read them, I would not have responded to your post.
>I was talking about extremists, the people who really crusade against shit.
The thing is, even that is an exception to the rule. Usually when you have some that ends up in a group of extremists with an attribute or opinion they would find distasteful or abhorrent, they simply put up an act to avoid being found out and to fit in. That's how you get stuff like gays in ISIS, and Jews in the SS- they've done such a good job at hiding themselves that the act has almost become second-nature. So it's not really a case of them being what they despise, but them being really good at appearing as those that would destroy them. I guess it also applies to those individuals that obsessively campaign about women's rights only to get caught raping or harassing them.
>That's why I brought up the point that your shitty little greentext neglected to include, which I'm sure wasn't intentional. You just strawmanned the entire argument instead of actually providing anything even remotely resembling a rebuttal.
No need to cry about strawmanning just because I didn't quote your entire post. The excluded part is mostly redundant, and was something that could clearly be inferred from context. And besides, it's not like the idea isn't widely circulated- anyone using the internet for any period of time has undoubtedly encountered it numerous times. I just find that it isn't as valid as many would think.