Humans are a species of violent predators (that can occasionally even kill for fun or get sexual pleasure from torture) and have been so for thousands of years. There's always the possibility of encountering groups of people who "think you shouldn't exist" for multiple reasons (ethnicity, religion, sexual preferences etc.), it's just unfortunate that some otherwise inconsequential and quite benign and harmless psychological or biological features disproportionately amplify this probability for you...

Sure we need to work harder to fix discrimination etc. But in the end just as people exist people who think they shouldn't exist also exist. Fortunately reality doesn't always match what people think "should be", for both sides.

The normal pattern of behavior on social media just as in real life is to "leave the room" when the room if full of s*t / toxic people: if the room is Twitter and enough people leave it, it will cease to be a meaningful social media platform as more people move elsewhere. If you stubbornly sit in a room while ignoring other people that don't ignore you, sooner or later they'll punch you in the face regardless of who's right or wrong because people's right to not be ignored is more powerful than people's right to ignore others (eg. "let see how you ignore a punch? how about a tank? how about a missile?" it just is, people don't start wars attacking other people because they're not allowed to ignore something, but they really do so for being ignored too much).

P.S. just upvoted you ;)

> The normal pattern of behavior on social media just as in real life is to "leave the room": if the room is Twitter and enough people leave it, it will cease to be a meaningful social media platform as more people move elsewhere. If you stubbornly sit in a room while ignoring other people that don't ignore you, sooner or later they'll punch you in the face regardless of who's right or wrong because people's right to not be ignored is more powerful than people's right to ignore others (it just is, people don't start wars attacking other people because they're not allowed to ignore something, but they really do so for being ignored too much).

There are so many double negatives in this pair of sentences that I can't work out what you mean or are advocating?

Sometimes people are not "advocating" anything just saying what we think and sometimes what we think is complex and nuanced requires effort to understand.

And that's another argument against such social media "carpet blocking" features, people will just block whatever is "too difficult to understand" because they'll probably identify it as "malicious" and lock themselves into simplified "cartoon reality" bubbles where everything is simplified and ADHD-friendly and easy-to-digest.

Then people outside the bubble trying to transmit complex messages would just give up communicating, then you get two groups of people not communicating and this sooner or later leads to violent conflict.

I would summarise their contrived stance as “Don’t use Twitter if other users are trying to harm you”.

Which is all well and fine, but on the other hand, I don’t have any problem with blocking malicious people and continuing to use Twitter. I don’t see why I should yield to the bad actors.