[borski]

You responded to someone describing their experience with an aggressive “just do it and don’t bother people fine with wfh,” implying that the poster was somehow trying to encroach on your ability to WFH. They never said that.

You even express your frustration directly in a sibling comment below.

Pretending your comment wasn’t rude, especially after elsewhere expressing your explicit frustration, is only half-true at best.

Have a nice day. :)

[causehealth101]

"Encroach on your ability to WFH" - you perfectly summed up the reason for the vitriol from remote-only people, IMO:

They are fearful that people with your stance will give companies a better argument for less remote-work. It's one thing when executives talk about it, because they're "not on the ground" and "just want control" or "don't understand individual contributors", but when peers like you support non-100% remote, it's a real worrisome prospect for them.

[borski]

Sure, but it’s also a worrisome prospect for those that have had serious issues with WFH for a company to decide to go all-remote. Still doesn’t give them the right to be assholes. :)

[znpy]

Making up stuff is half true at best too but whatever, have a nice day you too :)

[mlyle]

FYI, it also read as excessively dismissive, bordering on aggressive to me. There's plenty of ways to phrase your disagreement without invalidating the person you're talking to quite so much.