Dude, my initial post was meant to highlight that scrubbing your argument clean when convenient isn't a fair argument. You don't get to say ANTIFA is leftist but then shoot down the "alt right", kkk, etc. that are the equivalent on the right. Effectively, you're setting rules around what is/isn't acceptable as an outlier. It doesn't work like that and it doesn't aid your point; everything else you're saying is based on that assumption.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Then you're calling out extreme actions (Chaz, the US being "burned down") and conflating them with normalcy/acceptance from the left, but again, that same argument can easily be made on the right. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly (err, talking eloquently with verve in your case) doesn't change that.
It sucks that you and Mr. Who Gives a Shit have to contend with nazism/etc. being used as a comparison. Perhaps if it wasn't part of the problem right now it wouldn't be used as a comparison.
I am not disagreeing with you that extremist bullshit is a problem or that the left is incapable of it. I am challenging your "softening" of your political skeletons and calling out that simply reiterating your main point isn't making those skeletons go away. If you're going to have a conversation and reference recent events and notable parties involved, you don't get to declare some valid and others invalid. The reality is what it is and you have to own that.