>>579
This is a photo of you: https://i.imgur.com/YOcdhBm.png
Also, you're wrong. You make it sound like both sides are equally valid here. "Argument to moderation" is a logical fallacy.
This is how DQN treats politics (very naively and incorrectly):
https://i.imgur.com/xfk6DSD.jpg

It's like if someone said 2+2=0 and someone else said 2+2=4. Then fence-sitting centrists will be all like "well the truth is somewhere in between, so maybe the real answer is 2+2=2." Or your "multiple viewpoint" bullshit would be like saying that there are multiple objective truths, so maybe 2+2=5 and 2+2=7 as well as the other opinions people have. But we know that's not true. So why do people treat politics differently? You pretend that some issues are subjective even when they're not.

The fact of the matter is that some people are clearly wrong and others are clearly right. In some cases, there aren't multiple correct opinions. You are extremely naive. Sheltered egalitarian garbage. You know nothing.

Weeaboos on sites like this tend to be out of touch and I am trying to educate you. I am trying to get you to think critically about issues that you would rather ignore because you're not comfortable discussing hard-hitting subjects. But they NEED to be addressed. Inaction is part of the problem. Nazism wouldn't have come about in Germany if there were fewer fence-sitters.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."