My experience on this platform has been mixed so far but one thing I’ve noticed the most is a significant contingent of the user base is really reactionary in their discourse.

This is a very typical exchange I have here :

User: I don’t like this color because it’s red.

Me: I don’t know, looks more like purple to me. What about red is bad?

User: Why don’t you fuck yourself in the face you fucking cuntfuck!

Me: OK…

Like, what gives? I don’t have this experience on other platforms. I have arguments but never this shutdown meccanism.

  • Susaga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Someone made a point that, in pointing out how Kyle is a murderer, someone would come to defend him. Then you came to defend him, or at least said the exact thing someone trying to defend him would say. When people tried to brush you off, you cried about people not wanting conversations. When they corrected you, you cried about them sticking to a narrative. When they called you out for defending him, you claimed to hate him, then kept defending him. You were identical to a Rittenhouse supporter.

    Why does talking about sensitive topics need a disagreement? A death in the family is a sensitive topic, but you don’t need to say “I’m glad they died” to talk about it.

    • TheFonz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s the issue. People conflate fact checking with defending Kyle. That’s weird. It shouldn’t be one on the other. Dont you agree with that at least? Is that a controversial take?