Why is it okay for one side to be angry, but not the other? This is such a commonly used accusation to deflate someone else's point. Making them seem emotional, and therefore illogical.
FWIW, I don't think the person you're replying to looks even a little bit angry in that post. The point of view seems well considered.
I think the anger is coming out in over the top descriptions of white males as targets of some kind of cultural conspiracy, or talking about laughing at queer folk because they're not persecuted like unapologetic straight white men ... Those are some pretty odd conclusions that he seems to have wandered into emotionally, and it's hard to think there isn't some hostility there, otherwise why bother saying all this?
If you think he sounds neutral, unaffected, rational, I wonder if it's just that you already agree with him.
Your whole argument is based on the premise that statements made in anger cannot be true. And the focus on emotional state is typical ad hominem attack. You did not refute the content in any way.
Why is it okay for one side to be angry, but not the other? This is such a commonly used accusation to deflate someone else's point. Making them seem emotional, and therefore illogical.
FWIW, I don't think the person you're replying to looks even a little bit angry in that post. The point of view seems well considered.