Intellectual rigour is important. I place a high value on it, & wish that other people did as well.
But if you say to someone, "because you belong to X group or have Y characteristic, I should be allowed to deny you access to housing, medical care, & employment, or even to kill you, without suffering consequences ― prove me wrong", you should not expect a reasoned argument. You should expect a gunshot to the chest, followed by one to the head.
At the risk of being ignored by ―continued
those who misunderstand "Godwin's Law", I will point out that there is a reason for the application of extremely clunky phrase "final solution to the Jewish Question" to one of the most infamous atrocities in history. The Nazis & their intellectual antecedents had spent decades manufacturing debate in the terms "what shall be done about The Jew?" precisely to accustom the public to thinking of their Jewish neighbours, not as human beings, but as objects to be dealt with.
Exactly this kind of rhetoric is still with us.
Furthermore, the Internet (mirroring society in general) is full of people who adopt an entirely degenerate form of "debate", in which arriving at an answer is not important, much less its correctness. They constantly switch premises, even contradict themselves.
This can be a healthy intellectual amusement, but often is used (and this, I think, is what the poster alludes to) as a means of harrassing people.
Okay but like
To me, the propositions "your group deserves to be mistreated" and "your group is not actually being mistreated" are worlds apart
They're both false, but the former is evil whereas the latter is just incorrect.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko