[lexcorvus]

It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance," and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.

[nonsenselies]

It's even more dishonest to take all of the opinions held by individuals of some ill-defined cohort, and pretend that any inconsistencies between different individuals means that all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored.

[brightball]

It is dishonest but it's how political conversation has worked for a while now.

1. Create a label. 2. Demonize that label. 3. Associate people with that label.

That is the extent of political conversation. You see it pop up whenever you try to have a discussion on a topic and people start lashing out at things you haven't even thought about much less discussed. They're not having a conversation with you, they've having a conversation with a caricature.

[lexcorvus]

ill-defined cohort

The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance."

all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored

Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll likely be met with vitriol" implies that the converse—that you won't be met with vitriol—is also possible.

[nonsenselies]

Pedantry is a poor defense.

[lexcorvus]

"Group X tends to do Y."

"How dishonest. You're saying all members of Group X do Y and should therefore be ignored."

"I said none of those things. I said Group X tends to do Y, which implies that some members of the group don't do Y."

"Pedantry is a poor defense."

Calling me dishonest or pedantic is pure projection. If you have trouble seeing it, here's a mirror: http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/d...