An example wasn’t provided. A claim was made. That is not proof. I’m talking about a blog post, a Twitter thread, or something other than mere “trust me they exist” levels of proof.

Yeah, I'm not going to go do your research for you when literally ten seconds of Google search (yes, I do know what "literally" means, and no, I still won't waste the ten seconds doing your search for you if you can't be bothered to put forth even that much effort to support your assertion that I've never come in contact with these stereotypical FUD-spewing corporate product fanbois) can find you countless examples of exactly the type of hateful posts I describe. I've already wasted far more than ten seconds on this and now I feel bad for having even tried to engage in conversation on the topic.

If I cared to dig up actual examples I could link, I've numerous trolls that follow the word "Linux" around gaming forums spouting Ballmer-era anti-Linux FUD at every opportunity, just to begin the endless thread of examples, but the entire mentality sickens me and I'm actually trying to extricate myself from the Troll-pit that keeps wanting to drag me into pointless discussions of why A is better than B, when the true fact is that operating systems are tools to launch and run software. Use the one that lets you get your job or activity done in the way that works best for you and leave other people to their choice of tool if it's workin' to get their activities done for them.

The burden of proof is upon you, the person made the original claim. As you are unwilling or unable to provide such then the only reasonable conclusion to make is that your claim is false.

>The point wasn't to have a discussion of the semantic definitions of what makes something a stereotype

That wasn't my point either, so we're all in agreement. We're talking about whether or not the stereotype is valid here, so it would be a good idea to use the term correctly instead of using a made up definition. "There's people out there" doesn't cut it.