It is obvious from the desperate sarcastic tone and refuge to ad hominem criticisms that you all actually do, beneath the surface, recognize that I have a very good point, even though I didn’t initially set out to make it. It is simply inconsistent to make an industry of taking the extremist comments and tweets of the right wing as evidence of fundamental pathology within that movement, while dismissing the extremist content of the left wing as irrelevant.

There have been two attempted justifications for this inconsistency, one of which is a total logical fallacy and one of which is less so.

Most of your attempted justifications for this inconsistency have been based on the no true scotsman logical fallacy, claiming that those opinions encountered do not represent the ‘true’ left. The left only consists of what you want it to, and also of course anything posted on the internet could be from anyone. But if this applies to the left, then it most certainly applies to the right. There are certainly many right wingers who would claim that certain offensive viewpoints do not represent the ‘true’ right, or that no particular comment could be proven to be from a ‘true’ Conservative. I would find this defense to be inadequate to account for the extremism encountered from their movement, and likewise I find it an inadequate defense of the far left.

The other attempted justification for the double standard, which unlike the no true scotsman fallacy is not immediately dismissible, is that the magnitude of the problem is simply worse on the right than it is on the left. I actually agree with this as far as it goes. But it is a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. What do you believe is the ratio of severity? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? If dozens of postings on the front page highlighting anonymous comments on right wing blogs is justified, then certainly one single posting highlighting anonymous comments on left wing blogs should not be so hysterically fought.