• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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.

        • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days 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.