[globular-toast]

> They said to rephrase it to not just be negativity. But constructive too.

On the one hand I agree with you and I personally always try to be positive whenever possible. But nobody owes you constructive criticism and sometimes it's just not possible to think of anything positive. An attitude of "no negativity here" will just create a culture of yes men which isn't actually constructive at all.

I have no "agenda". I have opinions and I have experiences. I expressed how I feel because I assume the commenter wanted to do good and they'd like to know that it's actually harmful to some people, like me.

I suppose I also can't believe someone would feel the need to come to the rescue for the OP (as if they can't defend themselves) after such a harmless post. There's no personal attacks, no strong language, nothing. The assumption seems to be the OP is too soft to take it, which I can't help but think has sexist underpinnings.

[skinnymuch]

i used agenda in a way of everyone having an agenda to have people see their perspective as a good one if not correct one.

You quoted me saying “not to just be negative” then went on to talking about “an attitude of no negativity here”. Those two aren’t the same thing.

The above and especially your last paragraph appear to again repeat your pattern of having a typical “anti-woke”* agenda. Along with strong assumptions you build into innocuous situations. It seems like trolling because of how wild the last line is. Which gender is it even sexist against? I don’t know OP’s gender. Why would this ever be the assumption? It’s so far out of right field.

* I don’t care for a handful of things from either side of the aisle myself. But there’s a difference between that and trying to shoe horn anti-woke stuff into every convo.