"I disagree with this person therefore they're a chud therefore I can be as big of an ass as I want to them"
No. The specific thing I disagree with the person on, and the way in which they behave, makes me consider them a chud and thus I don't feel like I have to be particularly kind to them.
The only person I saw using "debate tricks" was you.
Then you are either blind or willfully obtuse. By the way the thing you did before of reducing my disagreement was a "debate trick" in case you missed it.
The specific thing I disagree with the person on, and the way in which they behave, makes me consider them a chud
A chud is a full-blown reactionary, not another leftist who agrees with you on 99 things and disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary (and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread).
A chud is a right-wing asshole, and that's what the user is.
disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary
"One point" being viewing sex workers as morally reprehensible humans that cannot be allowed space in polite society.
and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread
Okay and so what? I hold the opinion that the user is a chud, I hold the opinion that their puritanical views are reactionairy. What are you even trying to argue here? It's all subjective.
But go thru and see how they've behaved themselves since you stepped up to defend the smol bean. I'm done with your weird attempt at tone policing.
No. The specific thing I disagree with the person on, and the way in which they behave, makes me consider them a chud and thus I don't feel like I have to be particularly kind to them.
Then you are either blind or willfully obtuse. By the way the thing you did before of reducing my disagreement was a "debate trick" in case you missed it.
A chud is a full-blown reactionary, not another leftist who agrees with you on 99 things and disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary (and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread).
if they think sex workers are a danger to children they are a reactionary
A chud is a right-wing asshole, and that's what the user is.
"One point" being viewing sex workers as morally reprehensible humans that cannot be allowed space in polite society.
Okay and so what? I hold the opinion that the user is a chud, I hold the opinion that their puritanical views are reactionairy. What are you even trying to argue here? It's all subjective.
But go thru and see how they've behaved themselves since you stepped up to defend the smol bean. I'm done with your weird attempt at tone policing.