Except you're assuming that's what happens as a defensive measure. Neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence that a majority of progressives are screaming racism/sexism over silly matters. In fact, what happened here is that op made the claim that progressives call flirting harassment and I presented an article from a feminist website telling exactly how to flirt respectively.
An article that was ignored, btw, because it doesn't fit op's narrative.
I'm typing on my phone so can't easily copy the link but I just made a blog post about this kind of tactic so maybe check that out.
In short it's an attempt to discredit a group based on a straw man argument.
Otherwise, I notice you didn't give me your phone number. What, are you afraid I'll call you once and be polite?
You are mischaracterizing the article. The post was about the power and danger of words, and that we should be careful that we don't allow definitions to drift.
That's not what you want to talk about, which is why you mischaracterize it. And then claim that people posting comments are mischaracterizing the article that you mischaracterized first. And then when you are called on this mischaracterization and it is pointed out that dealing with persistent mischaracterizations and attempts to derail and redirect arguments is what makes discussion with Progressives so frustrating, you claim that people are making false generalizations.
And thus the real topic never gets addressed, now does it....
Neat debating trick -- for sophomores. But some of us tire of the BS. We'd like to have productive discussions. Rather than wade through ridiculous requests for phone numbers and financial dick swinging contests.
Last post goes to you -- have fun.
Nope. It's interesting how my debate with the OP went forward without him accusing me of the things you are.
I actually wrote an article a few weeks ago along similar lines: https://steemit.com/trump/@telos/trump-ushering-in-the-era-of-newspeak
As I told him, a fair and balanced argument would have included examples from both sides. When you present an argument giving examples only of the opposing side the ulterior motive is rather clear. Note that in my article on the Effigy Fallacy I avoided using either Liberals or Conservatives specifically to make it even handed and keep the focus on the point I was proving rather than attempting to demonize a specific group.
As for sophomoric debate tricks, shall we tally? You initially tried to dismiss me without reading my posts because I had upvoted them, then accused me of being a progressive because I was "afraid of competition," and now you're creating a straw man out of my post.
For a second there I thought you might be worth debating. I see now my first impressions were correct.