"Hating women" and "hating people who hate women" are the same "hate" only if you are a shallow thinker who stays at the surface of things and takes words at their face value.
You may find their justification to wash one of these sides, but that doesn't collapse jack about my "argument", we just disagree then. Sorry to hear this makes me a shallow thinker in your opinion, unfortunately, gonna have to disagree about that one too.
I did not put forward any arguments by the way, I stated opinions and an anecdote.
Consider our very own conversation. According to your very own words, you cannot help but extrapolate that I must be uncaring of women's sexual abuse, and have a lack of experience with sexual abuse myself. Your moral investment is clearly high in this, naturally meaning this is a sensitive subject for you, and that you are thus trying to establish friend from foe. I can very easily appreciate that, but consequently, it'd be hard to fault me if I went along for the ride, and took serious offense at what you just wrote. I don't think I need to explain why.
But this is no way to have a conversation. And indeed, people who are so amped up are rarely using their words for conversation. It's more of a torment nexus they unleash on those they find to be deserving of it. Surely, if you just accuse your conversation partner with one more blatantly objectionable hyperbole, they'll see the error in their ways (they won't, they'll just get even more amped up and radicalized instead).
Whether such perversion of discourse is acceptable to you, ultimately up to you. I'm a bit surprised you'd be in such disbelief why it's not so for others, however.
This is also reflected in political discourse. A common trope I encounter recently is "they'll tell you you're a monster but not that you're wrong". Indeed, things rarely fall into one category. How hurtful and how true something is are different axes that both exist. Would be awfully cool though if people didn't amp up the hurtfulness factor for funsies, based on whatever arbitrary moral justifications, then act coyly surprised when that's what takes focus. Or were at least candid about having done so.
Do you really need to call those who don't "insufferable" though ?
And what conversation do you expect to have when those who feel fine putting down women are promoted to positions of power and laws and rules are currently being changed to the latter's detriment? "Hey, I want to talk, please answer."
Reading how you write, it seems all so intellectual, "open for debate", for discussion. What you seem to miss is that the debate already happened during the last decades (with an "s"), and that one side has realized they lost that rational debate, and refuses to engage anymore. Global warming was only the template (or maybe creationism was), and now there is no debate to be had with regards to trans rights, women's rights, minorities rights, or even if election results have to be respected. The far right found the way out of "losing the argument": they don't even engage.
Just see yesterday senator (senator!) Schmitt falsely accusing Jack Smith of perjuring himself and conspiring with Fani Willis, and calling him a "dipshit". Just one basic problem: Schmitt mixed up the Atlanta Hawks with the Iowa Hawkeyes. How did Schmitt react to being corrected on the spot by Klobuchar? Debate and discussion? Nope. Did he correct himself afterwards? Nope, he went to the Charlie Kirk show and doubled down on that basic mistake - turning it willfully into a bare-faced lie. Did Fox news mention any of this? Nope. There is no debate.
(And Schmitt is not only a senator but first in line to become VP for Vance's presidential ambitions. He is not a third-rate nobody I am picking on to unduly slime the right in general: he is a major political representative.)
Meanwhile you have little to offer than getting punched repeatedly in the face by people who will double down when you do not fight back. You are, in my opinion, "fighting the last war".
It may seem very pessimistic and it is. The USA was on the way to a(n un)civil war. The only thing that is saving you currently is the haplessness of Trump, causing pain to everyone equally due to his economic and military ineptness, turning everyone against him. But without that shared pain, half of US voters (amplified by a voting system biased toward conservatives) would have been fine with all the subjugation of women and non-white people, and they are not interested in any good faith "discussion" on those topics.
Being trans is what you are, it has never been an open choice like how I can choose to associate with a different political party. If people could freely choose what gender they felt like without any mental distress or anguish involved, nearly no one would be trans because it is a massively repressed and limiting position in society, where a good chunk of the world population displays the emotional stability of a rabid bulldog when thinking about them. I could feel your fists clench through the text, especially when you think about only MtFs - a sign of very rational and stable views about gender roles.
Your example is just "let me tell you how good I imagine my side is, and how bad I imagine your side is. Not feeling so smart now huh?". Most far-rightists have no qualms about suppressing the other side if you look at how their societies act, from hyper-religious dictatorships to corrupt populist democracies. It's the right that's the most easily united under hatred, while the left is infamous for infighting and constant drama because they disagree on the minutia of some idea. A lot of the right can accept anything from a theocracy to the death of democracy if what they think gets instated. They do not care about anyone's rights or wellbeing. Maybe some on the regular right would disagree with some of these things, but not anyone who's deep into extreme ideology.
Uh, yes? And you prove my point? Because when you give this scenario:
>say a far left person wearing a bunch of pride badges gets attacked in public for no apparent reason, you will still see a far right person assist in defending the individual they fundamentally disagree
Then the far-right person will earn my respect, not my hate, because it defended the basic dignity of someone attacked for what they are. We could even start a conversation on why they helped someone they think is a "pervert abomination" that "destroys civilization". See, I don't hate the far-right guy for things he can't change about himself, but for his beliefs and hurtful actions at this point in time. The second he stops being hurtful, I have no reason to hate him anymore.
Whereas for the guys who hate women/black people/brown people/Jews etc..., you can't do anything to change for the better, except cease to exist, either by physically dying, or socially dying aka. becoming subhuman/noncitizen.
>regardless you saying that those who are far right hate people for something they can't change is just as funny as that first comment in the article, because for example, phrases like 'assigned male at birth' which is literally someone born as male then cosplaying a female. how is that someone who is "what they are and cant change"? i can personally find that to be revolting but it doesn't change reality.
How exactly are you personally affected by "someone born as male then cosplaying as a female"? You find it revolting but why should you care about their private choices who affect only themselves? Why do you feel you have to interject and meddle and attack? The only "obligation" you may have is to call them by a different pronoun than the one you would like to use. Is that such a "violence" that you feel justified in hating them and denying them rights, job promotions, fighting for their country (voluntarily!) and going to a water closet? Do you feel also violence by basic politeness like when you have to tell someone ugly they are looking rather nice?