I'll take your word for it, but I cannot say that I have noticed. I'd say that usually those three categories have a combo of issues they go ham on - usually that exact combination, funny enough.
That's what I'm saying; the problem here is that in this specific kind of topic the tendency is extremely prominent.
Okay, I'll explain why your attempt at paraconsistency was poor in as respectful a tone I can since you're not being belligerent.
Your position here:
that the porn thing draws in people with one-track mindsets who only vociferously talk like that about the porn thing. By contrast, the things you cited were usually multi-topic orators and the attacks were thus disingenuous.
The core difference is that there really does exist a subset of people who only seem to care about free speech to defend their fetish material.
requires me to accept that you know the following things you cannot possibly know (and yes libshits use this in defense of all of the slanderous bullshit they spew too, it's not an original defense of the 'but muh single-issue obsessives' viewpoint):
A: That you definitively understand how many of the people in all topics you're talking of are 'multi-topic orators' as opposed to merely being single-issue obsessives. You cannot possibly have any real metric not merely due to the size of the groups and the timescale over which you're making this assumption, but also due to the fact almost all of the people you're speaking of engage in these conversations pseudonymously/anonymously, so there's not even a reliable metric to track them even if you had some miraculous way of doing so via surface-level scraping of discussions globally for the past ten or twenty years of the Internet's discussions on these topics and parsing that information to have a satisfactory data set for this assessment.
B: That you with complete and inerrant accuracy know the sincerity of each and every interlocutor to an extent that would give you an accurate assessment of the political landscape. Meaning, since most of the people you're talking about engage in these discussions pseudonymously/anonymously there's no way to know how many are actually the people you're speaking of as opposed to bad-faith actors amplifying a small minority through imitation and socking.
It also runs into the realistic problem that:
The closer the topic gets to what is perceived to be a violation of fundamental rights or an existential threat - which giving the government what would effectively be a greenlight for egress into powers they've salivated over since the passing of the Patriot Act will definitely be perceived as both - the more likely all interlocutors regardless of characteristics otherwise are going to be heated to a degree that will give them the appearance of being 'single-issue obsessives' rather than 'multi-topic orators' because even if they feel similarly on multiple topics, in the moment it's easiest to accuse your opponent of being a 'single-issue obsessive' as they're clearly going to be acting the same way one might due to the severity of the issue at hand.
TL;DR: Your logic is still whack, retarded, and is no different in composition than the same stupid shit libshits say to defend the exact same logic you're saying somehow is 'different when we do it'. It's not.
