I've been following @imaqtpie and your posts in this thread (haven't looked through your history) and I think you are both making reasonable but unpopular statements. Much of the problem seems to be different goals and investments in conversation from different parties.

You guys are raising what you think are rational nuanced views on controversial topics, assuming others will respond with their own take, pushing back on your ideas in some cases and validating you in others. This is the "healthy debate" ideal, where there are no high stakes, just banter among friends or like minded individuals who enjoy fleshing out ideas and learning.

The issue is you're not sitting in a living room with people you know, or at dinner table with a mix of acquaintances and strangers where you can read the room. You mentioned this in your original post, how the text format of social media can be more challenging than face to face. I posit it's not only the fact that you can't read body language or have to give your whole argument in mini essay form instead of conversational chunks, but the fact that the "dinner table" is actually composed of a flow of people with different motivations, dispositions and attention spans.

Social media is often likened to a town square for this reason. You have huge reach to get your "message" out, but the kinds of conversations you're having are not ones that you would likely print off as manifestos and shout/distribute while atop a soapbox in real life. Yet, that's what can happen in a place like this. You start a conversation in a small sub thinking it's a dinner table, then all of a sudden everyone and their dog is there and has an opinion.

If you imagine yourself on a streetcorner engaging random passerbys then it starts to make sense. Sure, some regulars stop for a friendly chat each morning and engage in constructive banter over a coffee before going to work, but others are just waiting for the bus, or walking their dog, and they hear fragments of your conversation and are upset by it. They didn't agree to your terms of debate, hell they don't even want a debate. They just heard you say something slanderous and are pissed! They call you a name, flip you the bird, and walk on in disbelief that someone like you could be so ignorant and spew your backwards views on innocent bystanders. Why, you must be some kind of radical. You have the panflets and are saying discriminating things, what's your motive? It can't be good.

You on the other hand are shocked by this engagement and are crafting a rebuttal. What are they talking about? Which part of the conversation upset them? Did they misunderstand your point or miss some context? You prepare a whole speech but they're gone. Your reply never reaches them because they weren't in a debate to begin with, they were just walking by.

As I write this now, twice I've thought about stopping and deleting it. Not because I don't stand by what I'm saying, but because I'm lying in bed typing on my phone, and what would have been a 5 minute conversation has now taken me over 20 minutes to type with my thumbs and I'm going to be late for work. I'm replying to a the bottom of a comment thread so many layers deep will anyone see it? I know you will, maybe @imaqtpie, but that's probably it. Was it worth it? What do I get for all this effort? It's easier to not engage and just leave you two hangning.

In your case you probably get a lot of downvotes for your effort and negative reactions, which have to be discouraging. But again, I think that's all you can expect when you realize that the vast majority of people aren't like you, aren't your friends, and aren't at the same table. If it's possible to enjoy debating for the few people who do come by and enrich you, while sluffing off all the low effort jabs and thumbs down, then the soapbox might be for you. Otherwise yeah, it doesn't seem worth it.

Anyway this has turned into quite the ramble. Cheers from a guy who enjoys talking on his way to work.