GP made a dogwhistle comment about a political movement's discussion board. The parent countered.

Now, you want to stereotype all supporters by dismissing his counterpoint with innuendo, using a slippery slope fallacy.

[delayed]

Notably, people will also be nearly universally angry at anyone who points out the inevitable consequences of their actions in cases like this. Especially if they know you’re right.

Near as I can tell, the biggest failure of the left (and one that keeps getting repeated) is thinking words/knowledge matter in situations like this.

Please. You're pre-convicting people for "thought crimes."

Good luck with that.

> you want to stereotype [...] innuendo [...] slippery slope [...] you're pre-convincing [...] thought crimes

You're the one who's been making all the personal condemnations of evil intent, stop with the psychological projection.

OK. Why did you dismiss the claim above that "some but not all" aren't radical?

> morally culpable

Whose morals? What morals?