Most people here seem to tolerate disagreement to a reasonable extent. they may argue their points back and forth but they understand that if they ask a question or present a controversial statement, they may well be challenged (also usually politely).

i say most because i just ran into someone who made a statement declaring the motives of a politician whose motives may or may not be as she said they were. this wasn't some egregious misbehavior, like sexual assault or lying, or stealing, or money laundering, or being a racist. this was just a matter of the timing of some perfectly fine action; the poster thought the pol should have acted sooner, which may be true, and attributed the worst motivations to the delay, which probably is NOT true. i gave some possible reasons for the delay, not presenting them as fact but suggesting them as possibilities.

the poster responded that what i'd said was horseshit (okay, strong, but i've been strong before -- not in response to something reasonable, but still) and that she didn't give a rat's ass what i thought of her (and i had not said what i thought of her). she was a rude as rude can be, with no provocation. i can get snarky; everyone can get snarky. being snarky with cause is different. it is as if she just had no tolerance for any kind of disagreement. it shouldn't have been surprising to me, since her initial premise was a hasty judgment of another human being with insufficient facts. even if she still thought i was wrong, she could have backed up her assertion with facts (well, she couldn't, because she had just decided what was true, WITHOUT facts, but theoretically that would've been one way to go), but no. she attacked me personally, as people do when they have no other option and are losing an argument.

so i say MOST.

the block feature and i are becoming such good friends.

g