[bastawhiz]

If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions. Post your message publicly. If you were thoughtful, no reasonable person should be able to look at your communication and fault you. If you weren't thoughtful, you deserve the scorn for proving the point of the person who called you out. If you're not confident that you can be a decent and empathetic person in your communication with others, then yes, I suppose that's a good reason to avoid putting yourself in a position where your foot can enter your mouth.

[ZephyrBlu]

This is a fantasy. For every person who thinks you're being reasonable, it's highly likely there's another one who takes offense of some kind.

Even if only 5-10% of people took offense, it's not worth it to speak your mind.

[matkoniecz]

Even if 0.1% of people will try to start witch hunt it is still better to avoid answering.

[prawn]

This reminds me of the idea of physical risk for someone with a lifespan of a 1,000 years. If you're 60 with an average lifespan of 70, your actions are risking 10 years of life. If you're 60 with a potential lifespan of 1,000 years, you're effectively risking everything and might be inclined to be more risk averse.

When public discourse magnifies the risk of your comments, you'll tend to be risk averse also. Once upon a time, your opinion would be spoken almost all the time, and perhaps put in a letter rarely. The effort for anyone to raise hell over a minor quibble would involve spreading the word, and doing so enough to find the rare people with a tendency to join you. Go back decades and that is infinitely less likely.

Now, chances are your comment is in writing or recorded, and even if it isn't, the quibbler can broadcast their version of events to increasingly wider circles in seconds, at no cost and with virtually no effort.

I delete half of the comments I start writing online, thinking "What's the point? At best, one person appreciates it. At worst, thousands want to argue."

[saagarjha]

This is why 20-somethings are extraordinarily risk-averse ;)

[prawn]

Yeah, that's often raised in the hypothetical. Typically, older people with the least remaining life to risk are the least rash with their decision making!

[matkoniecz]

> If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions.

But in real world it is not true, and risk of witch hunt based on lies/misinterpretations substantially increased in last years.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions."

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.

[reddit_clone]

Something about LOC and Bug Count :-)

[krageon]

> If you've been thoughtful in your reply, there should be no risk of repercussions.

I agree that there shouldn't be, but as life advice this is a bad thought to operate from. If someone doesn't like you or what you've said, there's always a way to put you in a bad light. With discourse that contains a lot of risk, it's probably better to just avoid it.

[captainredbeard]

You are projecting your own thinking style onto the "other" person with this. There are many people who have a pathological sense of responsibility (that is, they have NONE) and will always react defensively to any feedback.

[danielscrubs]

Thoughtful is the keyword here. If it’s not a thoughtful person they might spread close to lies. For example: -masks help! -no what helps is distance! This is what my doctor said. A non thoughtful person would say that is antimask, and it might imply it, but until you ask the person that directly, you don’t know and there is so extremely much bad faith articles online that spring from polarized anger.