Do you think you could stop me from shoving my dick down your throat?

I don't really want an answer to that question... that is, unless you feel compelled to do so.  It's just my unusual way of pointing out that, in all likelihood,  *most people* would agree that there is a line, beyond which a word exchange is of palpable "negative value".  

You could argue that majority consensus isn't of value when determining what is of true value, relative to _______ (uncovering truth, positively evolving, etc.), but, if that's the case, you really shouldn't be surprised when you get general backlash, and perhaps a few swift jabs to rib-cage, from the peanut gallery, who happen to be the people that society bends its big, stinky ass to.

The Jesus of *Great Holy Bibble-babble*, er *Holy Bible*, if nothing else, is a fairly accurate representation of what happens to people who dare to press on in their questioning of the status quo.

Truly smart people distance themselves from that type of activity, despite their burning desire to rip a stinky truth bomb for humanity to incessantly suffer for, as their collective noses soak up its dank, putrid realness.

This is important to me:
>I've noticed how asking a question is converted into an insult by the one being questioned

I think that one thing we all would benefit from, is to give people the benefit of the doubt, in terms of assuming, at least initially, that the question was asked in earnest, not in spite.

It's tough I know, with variations in levels of roughness of response based perhaps on regional norms, and various levels of proficiency with the language of discourse.  

But if you assume the worst, it colors your perception of all replies. But if you assume the best or at least neutrality, I think it changes the tone of the replies.

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@shortsegments/re-nonameslefttouse-6u4xrx)