I could sub in any number of ideologies into your post- mad-libs style- and make any of them come out sounding crazy.

You certainly could, if one ignores the context of the words surrounding your inserted mad-libs, and if one believes that those words apply equally to all ideologies (a false equivalency if ever there was one). Of course, adherents of any ideology of equally capable of being assholes; but some ideologies promote that to an extent that others do not, or even rely upon it.

I don't think it's productive to make blanket assumptions out of an entire political party for the purposes of smugly demonstrating your moral superiority or discrediting them.

I don't think it's productive to pretend that a fringe ideology is anything but precisely that; nor do I think it's productive to lend an air of credence to an ideology based largely upon the writings and musings of people who genuinely did believe that child slavery was not merely fine, but natural (property of the parents, and all that) or who were, in their quest for ideological purity, quite fine with starving children to death so as not to be a "parasite" upon their parents or infringe upon said parents' rights.

And I don't think it's fair to deliberately misrepresent them or disavow any good points or concerns that they make because you don't like the person making them.

I agree. Now, if a libertarian could make a good point or bring up a legitimate concern that isn't drenched in the privilege of being white, male, and upper-middle class, I would be happy to engage in that discussion. I would also be excited to see a unicorn in the wild.

A) This is no different to me than all the posts about MRAs and reactionaries that I see here daily. You encouraged this environment so you got it.

The difference is plain, for those of us who are being honest: it's a matter of personal morality, ethics, and political ideology. Most people do not agree with the Paul Elams of the world; therefore, in a forum that is not devoted specifically to celebrating the Paul Elams of the world, most people will be happy to state their disapproval - often in rather harsh and mocking tones.

B) To deny there is a large voting bloc on this sub who only vote along social justice lines is disingenuous. The reason it's a cliche here is because it has happened often enough to become a cliche. On top of that there is a precedent with other subs like circlebroke where this all happened before, years ago

Have you considered the possibility that outside of those forums dedicated specifically to being anti-SJW/anti-politically correct, people tend to disagree with the narrative that social justice at its most basic is somehow abhorrent? There was a time when SJW had some sort of meaning - a person who came at social justice with an extremist lens, often a white person (male, typically) who thought only white people could solve the problems facing minorities (a correct assumption, in a majority-white culture, but nonetheless demeaning and dehumanizing in most contexts - but that time is long gone. SJW now seems to simply mean someone who believes race realism is racism by another name, who believes feminism is not some inherently evil and man-hating philosophy, and who may even believe that various levels of privilege exist and should be acknowledged. So call me an SJW, if you'd like; at this point, I'll wear the badge proudly.