>>90085545To be quite honest, you're not much better yourself. But, in case you aren't fishing for (you)s:
In
>>90084918 you claim a poster who disagrees with you is from Tumblr without any evidence to support it.
A better argument would have been to point out how you dislike the characters (and their lesbianism in particular), for other more valid reasons, such as coming across as pandering, having a boring or otherwise unrealistic relationship, among others.
Second of all the image posted in
>>90085288 is not an argument, but also employs a strawman, and suggests anybody who criticizes an anti-SJW (who I will assume means a conservative or moderate-leftist, but I guess it could be /pol/ too) must belong to the opposition, in this case your exaggerated SJW in the image.
The problem with this is that it implies an "Us vs. Them" mentality, which ignores any contextual reasons for why someone would find anti-SJWs annoying, such as when say, playing an online videogame and an anti-SJW is at best making stale helicopter gender jokes, or just bringing politics into a place where such discussion is unwarranted and unwanted.
A much better idea would be to point out how they ignored the rest of the post for a single reference to Tumblr.
And third
>>90085475. This is just sad, you couldn't come up with any better reply than triggered? Really? You could have pointed out how they're not making any arguments, which would in itself not be an argument, but at least it would have been something.
Finally, in
>>90085710 as it already has been said before, I will not go into too much depth, but calling someone you're arguing with a child is a textbook example of not making an argument while trying to come across as superior.