Crooked Hillary!

And speaking of statistics, you're grossly conflating unrelated things here. Why do you assume the ones who got jumped fall into the "kill all white males" camp, when again, you're talking a subset of a subset of a subset who represent less than 1% of the population, and as best I can tell represent less than 1% of even that population.

My posts are already being skimmed because they are so long, do you really want me to write up a hundred page disertation on every single opinion I have with all of the things I have ever observed that back them up in every single post? I can totally do this, I have absolutely no life and nothing but time and desire to argue on the internet. When I state something, I use an example, or even a few examples, but never all of the examples, because that would be ridiculously wordy and even more likely to be ignored, I already have trouble with walls of text now and have to delete a ton of content out of every single post, what you are see the edited down versions of what I have to say. So when you say that I think some people are part of a certain subset because of one thing they have said, know that I am not just basing it on that one event, I am contextually comparing it with every other event that I have seen that they and people within their circles have taken part in, it is not a one-off statement.

The very fact that these people may be 1% of 1% of society and yet dominate the social media sphere should conflate into something as well, you know. Pepe the frog was on pineappleing Time magazine as the biggest new symbol of hate speech in the world (now recognized officially as hate speech by the NDA, lmao), and had a potential president of the United States pomegranateting her pants at shadows for months, when that guy yelled pepe from the rafters when she mentioned the alt-right at one of her rallies she was visibly shaken. Unfortunately, I believe you are wrong, and it is not just 1% of 1%, because higher academia has been co-opted for a long time at this point and spouts the rhetoric to everyone that passes through, releasing wave upon wave of newly brainwashed young people onto the world with vastly out of touch ideology, particularly academia from the western US and New England, as well as some Ivy League schools, Harvard being the worst about it or at least the one who seems to be in the news the most because of it. It may have been a very small portion at the first generation level, but we are currently at the end of the third/beginning of the fourth wave of the social justice movement, and because in their first generation with first wave feminists they took over zones of society that made it easy for them to indoctrinate others, the movement has been exponentiating further with every new wave. You can't argue it both ways, if it is "1% of 1%" then they should not be dominating the news and everything the way they are, it is suspicious at best that they can do so, and if they aren't "1% of 1%" then your argument holds no water.

Finally, devolving the bulk of your argument into direct character insult isn't the way to talk to people effectively, if a "crazy neonazi sociopath literallyhitler" can recognize that then maybe you should think about it a bit, too. By and large, I -usually- remain civil even when most of the forum disagrees with what I say quite vocally, only breaking from that when I am directly insulted enough times in a short period of time. I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, as I have done a few times in this very thread.