[crux_]

The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates," and that is the part I chose to reply to.

If you're angered by my disagreement, it's not because I'm being inflammatory. I have not engaged in the name-calling you have, nor have I tried to undermine your posts by pretending to be unable to understand them. I have simply stated my honest opinion.

Perhaps you really do have trouble understanding what I'm communicating; if so, my condolences.

But it's more likely that you're simply unprepared for direct challenges, so you avoid the topics at hand and try to score points via misdirection.

[papsosouid]

>The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates

No, it was not. I said nothing about men's rights, you simply assume that I must be an MRA because I disagreed with something you perceive as feminist. Just like MRAs assume I am a feminist when I disagree with something they say.

>If you're angered by my disagreement

Why do you think I am angered? And you have not expressed disagreement, your post literally had nothing to do with anything I said. You posted a complete non-sequitur, which you know is deliberately inflammatory, under the assumption that I am someone who will be offended by it. That is the very definition of trolling, even if your assumption is incorrect.

[crux_]

Don't be disingenuous. Your comment introduced a group opposed to MRA's existence, then argued that they were wrong in doing so.

As for the rest, I have no interest in labeling people into petty little tribal buckets. I don't care what you call yourself.

That said, the amount of effort you are expending trying to undermine my opinion by personal attacks and misdirection strongly suggests you find my beliefs threatening, but lack either the evidence or the intellectual capabilities to produce a counterargument.

Finally, of course you are angered. On what other basis can you label my comments "inflammatory"?