> we get things like you telling me that you don't know what I consider vile, as if I'm just being unreasonable and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sorry

> we get things like you telling me that you don't know what I consider vile, as if I'm just being unreasonable and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sorry, but nobody is psychic. You said you had seen some "extremely vile" things, and gave no examples. You were politely asked for some details. Nobody has said they don't believe you at all, in fact the very point that someone has asked you to provide examples rather implies that such things do occur, hence you being given the chance to explain what you, personally, mean by "extremely vile" in this case. Nobody claimed you were being unreasonable, nor was it inferred, AFAICT. That seems pretty darn reasonable to me. It's certainly not how conversation would likely go on many other social platforms. Unless examples are given here by yourself, nobody can even arrive at your claimed "truth is somewhere in the middle" point of view — your comment merely becomes throwaway. Which, on this site, generally isn't how things are done — unless of course you are being unreasonable about things (in which case the downvotes will fix things pretty quickly). Edit: I feel this point from HN's "Guidelines" page (linked at the bottom of every page) is fairly relevant here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." — the poster asking you for examples is doing this, your response: less so.