Beginning of conversation for context.
This issue is strongly divided. Poking your nose into conversations strongly against your side only serves the purpose of attempting to get a reaction.
Now he can claim he was "attacked" unprovoked. Hint: his comment was actually a provocation.
The "empathy" card is my favourite, because it's an accusation meant to make the other person feel guilty and play on their emotions. This is hypocritical at best.
I don't know what was ironic in his opinion, since I never bothered to ask. The question is just bait. An accusation to get a rise out of me by obviously misinterpreting what I said. Also, questions like this put the focus on my behaviour instead of his, which serves as a distraction.
The "paint us all with the same brush" oldie but goodie. Another distraction to get me defensive. It's so I "feel bad" making accusations where they are "undeserved". It falls apart rather quickly when you realise I didn't say that, nor can you even twist my wording to believe I was implying it. And it's another distraction, again trying to turn the focus of conversation off himself.
Distraction #3... I guess in case the first two didn't work? It's an attack, pure and simple. Not to mention judgemental and very sneer down my nose at you phrasing.
Now everything I've said is "just as bad". Same as the "two sides to every story" rhetoric. He's pushing hard for me to try to consider his feelings through all of this, a common manipulation technique because we are empathetic, feeling human beings and don't like the idea that we've hurt someone else. So far he's been very offended (at least, saying he is) at what I've said but not denied one word of it. Rather, he is trying to continue to get a reaction from me by shutting down the conversation (a rude, hurtful snub) to justify his own behaviour.
I'm pushing focus on him and ignoring everything else.