I just muted and blocked a poster on Google+. He has way more followers than I do, and a lot longer track record in G+. And I regret having to block him, because he posts a lot of groovy stuff from the early days of computers, TV and the Internet.
I've joined in many comment-versations under his posts, often disagreeing because, well, his politics and mine are diametric opposites on many issues. He has his opinions, I mine, and that's mostly been the way it's gone.
But I don't like being bullied, and I was astounded (and then appalled) at the way a really trivial difference of opinion got blown up into hate speech today.
He blew up. I blew up. And then he gloated about my response to his response. And it got idiotically vicious, in the pseudo-genteel way that a conversation can be when neither party is willing to throw explicit names or language.
It's amazing to me that in a discussion about cats, from someone (me) who obviously sided with the cats and their owner, a humorous tale about what really happened 40 years ago to a friend of mine at school was taken as promoting animal abuse. Really!
Like I said, I regret blocking this user, whom I will not name. I'll miss his other posts. But his insistence that everyone who converses with him should agree with his exact POV on this topic, or get lost, is not conducive to anything except higher blood pressure. Especially since I don't disagree with him about animal abuse.
I only disagree that my anecdote represented it.
Maybe sometime, I'll post here the story that sparked this incident, and ask other people's opinions about how "abusive" it was.