defending creepiness via semantics and false consensus

A man at a Reform rally posts a sprawling defense of 'Rob' that somehow concludes that sexually vulgar comments are totally fine because Rob only *agreed* with them in the comments, and also because "every man" wants to do it anyway. The mental gymnastics required to construct this argument are genuinely impressive—like watching someone build an elaborate bridge out of wet napkins while standing on it. This is what internet brain looks like when deployed in service of defending the indefensible.