[-] threeshortwords@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You may want more validation and that’s fine. But nobody owes it to you.

To repeat the exact point of your comment, you don’t know that the person you're responding to actually thinks this or deserves this characterization. It is extremely uncharitable.

To make my own uncharitable characterization, It sounds a lot like bullying someone with therapy speak for stepping out of line.

assuming their motivations when they only speak neutrally.

And yet not a single response can be seen in this vein on comment after comment from the clear majority repeating over and over that the woman is protecting herself from bodily harm by speaking this way. Nobody seems to be telling them that they're making assumptions. Only this guy gets this response.

In conclusion, as naive and simple as it sounds, let's just be fucking nice to each other. Even to those you imagine deserve no respect or 'special treatment' (which is usually code for respect).

Internalizing that last bit is something I really wish more worked very hard to do. And it is very hard. I'm probably screwing it up here. But I'm trying. For what that's worth.

[-] threeshortwords@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

He also was saying Kirk was too hateful

This information comes from a misquotation. One example of the story with this information has the full context:

Cox said that a family member of Robinson had told investigators that at a recent family dinner, Robinson had mentioned Kirk’s upcoming event at Utah Valley University, and “they talked about why they didn’t like him and the viewpoints that he had,” Cox said. “The family member also stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate.”

Note that the family member is the one who said "Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate." But it has been repeatedly misattributed.

threeshortwords

joined 2 months ago