What you’re calling “extreme” is simply direct pushback without the usual padding people have come to expect. That padding, hedging, soft language, pretending both sides might have a point, is exactly why misinformation keeps spreading unchecked. It creates the illusion that facts are negotiable.
Now, if the goal is to gently reassure everyone and avoid discomfort, then yes, a softer tone would be more appropriate. But that approach routinely fails to correct anything. It prioritizes feelings over accuracy.
If the goal is to actually challenge bad information in a way that’s unambiguous and difficult to misinterpret, then a firmer tone is not only justified, it’s necessary.
You don’t have to like the delivery. But dismissing it as “extreme” avoids engaging with the actual issue, whether the claim being challenged holds up. If it doesn’t, then tone becomes a secondary concern.
The reason I responded at all was because I looked up what he was talking about because anytime someone makes a wild claim supported by a poor source it tends to raise a few red flags.
I don’t mince words and I don’t play it soft.
It is a clear sign of the times when clear pushback on a wild ass claim is met with “your comment is so extreme.” It should be so as to ensure the validity of what I’m trying to say.
If there was more “extreme” out there my country wouldn’t be the utter maga shit hole it is now.
In addition to my first comment response.
What you’re calling “extreme” is simply direct pushback without the usual padding people have come to expect. That padding, hedging, soft language, pretending both sides might have a point, is exactly why misinformation keeps spreading unchecked. It creates the illusion that facts are negotiable.
Now, if the goal is to gently reassure everyone and avoid discomfort, then yes, a softer tone would be more appropriate. But that approach routinely fails to correct anything. It prioritizes feelings over accuracy.
If the goal is to actually challenge bad information in a way that’s unambiguous and difficult to misinterpret, then a firmer tone is not only justified, it’s necessary. You don’t have to like the delivery. But dismissing it as “extreme” avoids engaging with the actual issue, whether the claim being challenged holds up. If it doesn’t, then tone becomes a secondary concern.
I find it an extremely response without ensuring what you say is correct. Context matters.
The reason I responded at all was because I looked up what he was talking about because anytime someone makes a wild claim supported by a poor source it tends to raise a few red flags.
I don’t mince words and I don’t play it soft.
It is a clear sign of the times when clear pushback on a wild ass claim is met with “your comment is so extreme.” It should be so as to ensure the validity of what I’m trying to say.
If there was more “extreme” out there my country wouldn’t be the utter maga shit hole it is now.