Embed Notice

@MrHedmad

you are focusing on entirely the wrong thing.

what you started with (and the strongest point of your argument) is that this is a double standard ("toxic" already being a watered down version of the point.)

then when you were confronted, you moved to defending the weakest of your points ("anecdote vs. anecdote"). sort of like reverse motte and bailey.

this. whole. dynamic. is the reason for what is described in OP. sapienti sat