[LocutusOfBorges]

> But then marcan told his supportes to fuck off unless they commit to supporting his political ideas, which I was not willing to do.

Is this about Marcan’s outspoken support for transgender people? If so, why not simply say that in your comment, rather than framing it in such vague terms?

[selectnull]

Because I think it's not important in the context of this discussion. Whatever their views are, I am not willing to be forced to think about them.

[LocutusOfBorges]

…So it is about the fact that you object to his support for transgender people?

Surely you see why this is, actually, directly relevant and important context for your statement. It’s not some general political leaning you’re talking about - lumping this (prejudice against a minority group) into the same category as something like banal disagreements over taxation policy amounts to deliberately obscuring what you’re saying behind innuendo.

If you’ve got something to say about his political views in a public forum like this, at least do the people around you the courtesy of being upfront about what you’re actually saying.

[selectnull]

And here we go again, there is never a neutral position with some people.

I support the freedom of people chosing their sex or gender. At the same time, I'm not willing to fight their wars. And if they force me to go to war, then I pass.

[cchcch]

Comments like this are why people find transactivists so irritating. Whether they happen to agree with them or not. No-one even mentioned transgender issues yet here you are bringing them up to start an argument. Not everything is about trans you know.

[LocutusOfBorges]

Given that this is seemingly the thing for which he’s most known, politically, it doesn’t seem remotely unreasonable to infer that the person I was replying to was talking about it. It’s absurd to take this evasiveness as anything other than bad faith.

If the group in question were gay people, or a racial minority, would you still treat the issue this way?