u/Kinderjohren

And if someone on a popular political sub (I'm talking about most mainstream ones, not those with quality debates) responds to someone only to criticize their line of argumentation, but without revealing anything else, are people so polarized that they would automatically assume it's a member of the opposite tribe (whether openly or with a hidden agenda), or do libertarians also have a visible presence in mainstream discourse as a separate category and not everything comes down to the necessity of taking one of two sides?

Yes, I know that I'm asking about something most people here probably see as obvious, but I guess that's what this sub is for.

Is it about the fact that people are afraid of a huge downvoting attack?

Because so many of them want to publish inconsistent information or opinions and not be called out?

Because otherwise people would lurk on their profile to find something against them in a discussion and use as ad personam, and they prefer to avoid it?

I just genuinely don't get what the main reason is.

I don't know where else I can share this post with full descibtion, so here I am. It was already deleted twice. I would be really grateful if I could ask my question here.

I like controversial, but not strictly political discussions, but I just realized that about half of the posts where I commented in the last 2 weeks, or maybe even more, were deleted (I'm not active every day, so it's not that crazy a number, but still I was pretty shocked). I hate the fact that mods delete an enormous number of decent posts with civilized OPs and the rest of the people in the thread, so it just can't be explained by anything hateful or aggressive in the discussion.

Unpopular opinion has a whole list of taboo topics almost every topic can be attached to one of the categories, but it is often a stretch. and"About CMV specifficaly:
it's not necessarly about posts being controversial, but I believe they overse the reasoning to delete topics because OP didn't "demonstrate that they are open to it (opinion) changing". And it's extremly arbitral, because most people there ultimatly don't change their views and don't even look fot it, but just want to present their ideas. I've seen posts with very stubborn OPs that haven't been deleted, and those where OP was acknowledging other users good arguments and was evidently was open enough, that were deleted. And that tells me that using this explaination by mods is inconsistent and probably very often used when somebody doesn't like the post because of some personal reasons.

Do you know any discussion/opinion-based subs that don't have to contain only political topics, and where there isn't this terrible tabooization of everything and very frequent deleting of posts with no legitimate reasons? Or even political if there genuinely is freedom of speach with very few restrictions and infrequent post deletions?

But where cotroversial topics (or similar reasoning) are contanly deleted?

But where cotroversial topics aren't contanly deleted?

In any argument that being with a younger person is due to immaturity or narcissistic traits, there is some form of an assumption that older partners must have consciously sought out relationships in the past and chosen dating partners without first building a deeper emotional bond. To me, this perspective seems rooted in a mindset shaped heavily by dating app culture, where alternative ways of forming connections are overlooked.

When someone falls deeply in love with a person they already know, it is difficult to expect them to forgo a relationship solely because of an age difference, especially if they genuinely believe their bond is healthy and that harming the other person is out of the question. Love does not always arise from a deliberate intention to date a particular type of person.