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.
If you want to know why this platform reacts differently, it’s because it’s smaller, so you get noticed more easily. When you act calm and composed and “just ask questions” about why a mass murderer is called a mass murderer, people are more likely to notice.
If a summary of your actions sounds like an attack, that’s a problem.
So. If I understand correctly, talking about charged topics is an automatic invitation for extreme vitriolic language? I don’t experience this elsewhere (if, fb) . It should be more vitriolic on fb than here… Not the other way around no?
It kind of is. When someone has an extreme emotional reaction, you should look at what they’re reacting to before calling it unreasonable. Any defence of a mass murderer, no matter how civil it pretends to be, warrants an extreme backlash.
Like I said, Lemmy is smaller. People don’t notice you on fb, but they notice you here.
Just how many times are you going to ignore your own role in your conversations? You are the common thread among everyone who dislikes you.
But my point isn’t that people don’t disagree with me. I want to find disagreement because I don’t want to live in an echo chamber. I want to discuss ideas. Mi point is that the vitriol here seems stronger than other places. That’s all.
Were you even responding to me? Because you disagreed with a point I didn’t make and raised a point in response to my answer of that point.
Don’t disagree for the sake of disagreement. The devil doesn’t need an advocate.
Sorry. I reread your previous comment. You make some good 'points.
I never intended to defend Kyle. And I can see why people would assume that. My messaging was very poor and I think people went straight to labeling we a Rittenhouse supporter. Given that the labeling persisted even after I clarified I’m not interested in defending Kyle. I understand it’s a charged topic and the rage blinders just come on right away. That kinda makes sense.
But then how do we talk about sensitive topics at all? Do we bury our heads in the sand?
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.
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?