Nah. There are certain things that one might post that are worth saying, because they push back against bullshit, but are certainly not worth discussing with peddlers of such bullshit. Just think of any conspiracy theory (e.g. anti-vaxers) as really obvious examples.
So you claim the right to push back but also the right to block any responders who push back on your push back? Why the asymmetry? Because you’re right and they’re wrong?
Sounds like people want to both get praise (or upvotes, depending on forum) for spouting the prevailing views (or the insular views of their bubble, whichever), but not having to deal with any inconvenient disagreements. Whatever that is, it is not a “conversation”.
There actually are objective facts in this world. Not everything is just the "prevailing views". People who want to debate objective facts are not worth talking to. It's also not worth talking to people who don't engage in good faith. Finally, one's time is finite. Internet randoms don't have an inalienable right to take up anyone's time.
> People who want to debate objective facts are not worth talking to.
Then don’t. But that’s not a “conversation”. That’s just lecturing.
Also: Who is the arbiter of what is, and isn’t “objective” truth? Reasonable people sometimes differ.
Also also: The “truth” in this case was “the word ‘groper’ is always offensive, no matter where it is used”. Which I certainly could see reasonable people disagree with. But nope, that obviously merited a straight block.
