There's a difference here.

In the case of geek-type arguments, they are arguing about something that isn't likely to affect their everyday lives; it doesn't *really* matter if your side loses the debate (whatever that means). You see a similar phenomenon among sports fans; if your team loses, it's not going to kill you, make you homeless, or otherwise affect you in any serious way.

When it comes to issues of identity and civil rights (and the #WontBeErased hashtag is about such things), then the issue becomes much more serious. If the wrong side wins the "debate" here, and gets their views enshrined in public policy, the results can result in things like homelessness or even death. Since you're from Germany, I would assume you are aware of what happened in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of such hatred of minorities; in case you, for some reason, haven't heard of this, about 17 million people (according to Wikipedia) were murdered as a result. When the consequences are dire, one can't just shrug things off like this.

So, yes, there is a huge difference.

What about Mel Gibson? lol

WHAT IF, and stay with me here, what if the GOG Social Media team just went ahead and didn’t tweet like a cringe inducing edgy 13 year old. I mean, most of the time GOG supporters are busy making threads about how much they dislike GOG so I’m surprised anyone even has the time to rush to their defense when they tweet like an asshole.

Tell me, please. How being called "he", instead of "she" (or vice versa) can result in things like homelessness or even death?

@dtgreene

It was a "bad tweet" according to you. No doubt other people as well. But not to me.

I am awaiting your answer to LootHunter's question, and would also appreciate it if you could explain what this has to do with "hatred of minorities"?

One more thing: Can you explain these dire consequences? I know that the Nazi Germany you predict hasn't occurred yet in the history of the U.S. What am I missing?

He's an untrue Scotsman.
You think that's all that's happening? How about losing protection against discrimination? Let's say you come out as trans and your boss is a big ol' transphobe, you starting to see where the homelessness and death might come in?

By that logic, if my boss is a fan of The Last Jedi and I am not, I can see homelessness and death too. And note, that in this case I don't have any protection against discrimination whatsoever in the first place.

And if discrimination over taste in movies was a widespread problem then I would expect it to be a protected category too. Thankfully we don't live in that world, but unfortunately we do live in one where transgender people are routinely discriminated against.

I would like to see a proof of that statement. Because as far as I know people today are widely discriminated for their tastes (not just in movies, but in any media and even jokes) and not their gender identity.

That's happening to *everyone* these days, so how about supporting universal human rights for all, or do you only support the issues that are trending on your preferred media outlets?

I absolutely support universal human rights. When a particular aspect of human rights is under attack is it not natural to focus on it?

Today the only aspect of human rights that is under attack is a right of free speech. And you are definitely not on the side that support this right.

By this statement am I correct in thinking that you don't think discrimination exists any more then?

Or I guess maybe you don't think it's a human right not to be discriminated against?

No, you are incorrect. Discrimination exists. Just most people who are discriminated are not the ones modern media claims to be in need of protection.

My Spidey senses are tingling! This thread is going to be locked soon, I predict.