I lost interest in this dialogue when you used "a person could be a women's right activist because they hate men and think there should be a role reversal" as an example.

It's not that I haven't tried to understand your perspective, it's that I feel like your perspective is absurd and coming from a lack of personal experience on your end. You're making way too many assumptions about my own thought process. To be honest, I've felt like you weren't listening to me this entire time, but when I communicated that you started a whole argument about what "talking over someone" actually means. I've felt talked over. Pretending there isn't a problem or that the problem doesn't mean the definition of "problem"' doesn't make the problem go away. You've been entirely denying my lived experience and perspective and I instead relying on useless anecdotes that have no basis in real fact.

You are wrong that someone will incorrectly come to the assumption that they were abused because of someone saying "that's abuse" in response to actual, blatant assault. What was described in the original comment was abuse. Someone replied and said "yeah, that's abuse." and you had a problem with that because they didn't say "that's abuse" nicely enough? Seriously? That person was literally assaulted. We don't have to say "that could maybe possibly be abuse" like we're talking to children. God.