Well, I could have gotten in on the horse thing, but I don't really care about horses and they're not really on-topic. I just think it's funny that our newbie complains that people are harassing him in the same breath that he complains about people choosing to feel offended. Well, if he believes it's a choice, isn't is his choice to be offended by my posts, not something I've done? It can't be both; it doesn't really make sense that it's my
choice to be offended (I'm not offended, but whatever), but when he's
upset, it's not
a choice. How's that work? We have a sticky about fallacious reasoning, right?
In my case, I mean, I think my posts in this thread have been for the most part pretty reasonable. I addressed one person in particular because I noticed a kind of weird common thread throughout his posts. I do agree with the OP that some topic matters aren't given a fair share (elsewhere, I guess, but it's certainly true here as well at times) and there are definitely some people who don't seem to have any intention of arguing (or even discussing) in earnest here in PROC (and I guess the rest of the internet, too). A lot of the religious threads come to mind; a lot of those tend to look like people with superiority complexes trying to browbeat people who disagree with them. That's not good for debate.
Neither is storming out of the room and telling people that they should choose to feel less offended when they ask "Why do you want to keep talking about how Nazis weren't so bad?" Toxicity, right?