Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, I understand. It's the nature of the voting system of comment feedback. Reddit behaves the same way. Arguments become competitions to see who can inject enough vitriol while still maintaining a placid genteel demeanor. The one who "wins" (convinces the peanut gallery to upvote them) is the one who can avoid looking like they got mad. Depends on which subreddit and which flavor of groupthink. The behavior you sa…
>Depends on which subreddit and which flavor of groupthink. The behavior you say is upvoted is one I often see downvoted to oblivion on Reddit. Really doubt that but feel free to give an example. >If it's OK to address his comment sans the "decel", it should also be OK to address his use of "decel" without discussing the rest of the comment I think the only acceptable response is to answer his argument if you can rea…
When indulging in a discussion with others, one has to realize that the universe of what people consider acceptable responses isn't limited to yours.
Yes, it's clear that's what you think. It's also the whole point of discussion here. Merely repeating it isn't supporting your perspective.
> If you can't handle a heated commenter and insist on making his anger the discussion, then you'd have been better off not answering it. So just recognize this and ignore.
He is the one who brought the anger into the discussion, and thus it became part of the discussion. Not addressing it is a symptom of not handling it.
Do understand: Until about a decade ago, I thought like you. It caused me all kinds of headaches in the real world, and so I decided to study what an effective conversation. I took a multi-day course, as well as read several books on it.
All, without exception, point out that failure to address the emotional content is a bad idea and one of the reasons conversations become ineffective.