• db0M
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Ye I should probably add smt. Just a lot to do.

    The point of the disengage is that sometimes you might not necessarily want to block a person. Blocking still allows them to talk shit about you without you seeing it for example. The disengage is a way to say “ok, let’s agree to disagree before things get (more) flamey” in a succinct and official manner. You don’t always want to block everyone you get into a heated argument with, so there’s good to have a way to disengage where neither party feels like they have to have the final word.

    I hope lemmy at some point would give us a way to lock individual comment threads.

    • @lemonmelon
      link
      1
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Disengage should only be enforceable if it’s invoked in good faith. Posting a wall of text and using it to get the last word forfeits any protection it provides. It’s the equivalent of calling for a fair catch in American football, then attempting a return.

      Immediate edit: it doesn’t even have to be a wall of text. Any response included with the disengage request invites further discussion and suggests that there is a desire to continue the conversation, at least to the extent of having the final say.

      • db0M
        link
        fedilink
        01 day ago

        That’s what I said already, yes

        • @lemonmelon
          link
          01 day ago

          Great, then we see eye to eye on it. I think it needs to be made as explicit as it possibly can be, so I responded with my own thoughts. It’s wonderful to know that more than one person can share a viewpoint.