In no way am I suggesting that vitriol is understandable or justified; I'm just pointing out that the more unpleasant a message is, the more people are going to reply in horror, which inadvertently amplifies it. This is how social media is engineered to drive engagement. Anyone who is far enough gone to post something that disgusting is clearly in the midst of a social media addiction, and is posting more and more inflammatory stuff to get that dopamine hit.
Constantly giving these attention is just going to encourage them to get worse, and I think it's disingenuous to act as if only one side of an argument is guilty about this. Linehan spends all day on twitter, and clearly has an addiction, which has fuelled him drifting further and further right, fuelling his outrage at transpeople, muslims, or whoever Elon Musk's algorithm tells him to be angry at. In the last decade he's gone from relatively milquetoast GC liberal to a Trump fan who cheers along ICE killings and whose tweets number the hundreds every day.
I suppose that's what this thread is about; people on any side of an argument can be radicalised by social media addiction like this, and Linehan now is instinctively lashing out at anyone who is trans (or just who he thinks is trans).
That's my worry when I see the vitriol on here; yes, 99% of GC people on this site are reasonable, but each post by the 1% who ignore the actual violence against transpeople nudges the conversation slightly more to the extreme end of the spectrum, and I think after about a decade of this fight that's caused a noticeable shift.
Social media has nudged people along like this so imperceptibly that we haven't noticed, but people on here (and on other social media) are so much more angry and vitriolic now. This is nothing new, but I think acting as if that only applies to one side of the debate is to ignore the fact that it's a far wider problem than just TRAs.