Constantly. Usually it takes the form of purity tests.

• “You’re either with me or against me / You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”
• “If you don’t satisfy all of my impossible requirements, you’re as bad as a nazi”
• "We only agree on 99 out of 100 things, so clearly you’re not to be trusted"
• etc

i really have never encountered someone like this.

unless the ‘purity test’ is being anti genocide or pro trans rights. you know, basic fundamental shit.

Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.

If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.

Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.

Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.

Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.

You’re all making generalities out of assumptions here…

There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests

Their purity test: You must not deny genocide.

What you heard their purity test was: They must accept that any and all genocides that I think exist are real and a big problem.

Again, you fucking morons are inferring things that aren’t there just to try and be witty, while utterly missing the point…

Congratulations on failing your reading comprehension test.

You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.

The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.

Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.

If they turn it in to a white genocide problem, then you already have your answer: They don’t care about minorities.

By world population, whites ARE a minority.