You're the apple

Well, I'm not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Seems to be the general group that's being blocked.

If someone wants to argue economy with me, I'll bite. If someone wants to argue about whether or not trans people deserve rights, I will block

See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:

Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant

Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation

Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.

Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.

Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.

A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That's how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.

But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.

What makes me different is that I don't think people should be oppressed for things they can't control. I don't think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don't think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don't think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.

More critically, I don't think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don't think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn't have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn't be an issue.

This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:

I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.

I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.

Those steps stink, probably because you pulled them out of your ass.

Step 1: label people you don't like as intolerant

Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course

Looks like you've already completed steps 1 and 2...

Tolerance is not an absolute rule, but a social contract. Members of a tolerant society agree to tolerate others so long as others do the same. When someone violates the contract by being intolerant they cannot then proceed to hide behind that same contract for protection.

At some point a judgement has to be made about what is tolerant and what is not, and that is a judgement we make collectively as upholders of the social contract.