I told you about the most traumatic thing I'd ever experienced, and you responded that it was "funny" and then went on try to to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. I assumed you were trying to provoke me. Responding to that with "hysteria" and condescension seems completely reasonable. I would respond the same way to someone justifying other atrocities, if for example you tried to justify the Holocaust, you would see the same "juxtaposition" of me being "consecending and hysterical."
Also, I did support my thesis with examples and made rational arguments.
Donald Trump himself threatened to run as a third party candidate in 2016 if he did not get the nomination. Did you forget that? Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders bent the knee and actively campaigned for Clinton. Which of those strategies worked? Which of those factions wields more strength today?
Is this not exactly what you asked for? "Support my thesis with examples?" Are those not examples? Do they not support my thesis? Your only response to those actual, physical examples was to cite a saying, with nothing to back it up except that people say it, except that it is "conventional wisdom." Maybe you should take your own advice and support your thesis with evidence.
But really, we couldn't, and can't, even begin to get into the nitty gritty because of your stubborn refusal to accept that lesser evilism is a specific belief and moral framework, even as I demonstrated logically that it was. If you won't even allow your beliefs to be defined and identified, then how on earth could we even begin to examine them critically? Before we can really get into examining whether it's correct or valid, we have to be able to define it clearly and state what it is. So, my arguments were focused on doing that, and I did so quite logically, bringing up for example the is-ought problem. What am I supposed to do when you respond to my arguments like the "that's not my wallet" meme?