Reddit was the same way to be honestly.

I can understand what you mean. The prevailing narratives tend to be America bad, cars bad, capitalism bad, Linux good, on and on. But in the vein of how you assert that you don't want people to assume what you believe, going into a community painting users with a broad brush is going to fill the gap with your pre-conceived biases, and that isn't conducive to good discussion. I say give it a chance, even someone that writes along the lines of what you expect may still have a tiny sliver of something that surprises you. I look at some of the more notorious users like FlyingSquid, PugJesus, PP_BOY etc. and I've agreed with them and disagreed with them on various topics, even if they were in line with 'the narrative'. Other users I attempt to converse and sometimes it works out while other times I have to stop at the 3rd reply.

I'm making an effort to be better, trying to curb the ratio of responses I do that have only memes and add more original thoughts or detailed opinions to my newer comments.

I'm kind of surprised you think reddit was any different from that!

I keep post scores hidden so getting downvoted isn't much of an issue for me because I won't know unless I go out of my way to check.

On some conversations you might be better off seeing the score. Some people will agree in terms of a vote but aren't going to back you up in the comments. I've had a few conversations where the comments are demoralizing and the score shows me I'm reaching at least some people (or vise versa).

Also, something I learned from Twitter and Reddit after engaging with people too much ... sometimes the right answer is just to use the block button liberally and call it a day. Some people are not interested in discussion or good faith debate they just want to yell at people on the Internet and feel smart.

I had a person I bumped into saying (all of this paraphrasing) "the press has gone to shit" because of a headline and I was like "can we not be so dramatic this is a small website, surely a bad headline from a small operation is not a new thing" then they responded with "how many headlines do you see with X Y or Z even in those mainstream outlets? It's all gone to shit." I ran a few searches and found a rate of about 1 article per paper per year that met their alleged example... And then they said that was malicious compliance, I'd ignored their argument, and I wasn't acting in good faith... Like mate, I just literally took 15 minutes to check your claim out and came back to tell you; how much more good faith do you want? That was a block, that person is clearly a total waste of time, and I don't want to interact with their "doomerism."

In a sense it's a blessing lemmy is kind of small because blocking one loud person that has a lot of opinions that irritate you can go a long way.

The main issue for me is that I can reliably guess what kind of replies certain topics get and what is popular and what is unpopular. It's kind of like having a friend who never says or does anything that surprises you. Why even bother asking for their opinion when you already know what they're going to say.

I was definitely feeling this way a couple weeks ago ... ironically the worst was the weekend my birthday fell on. It just felt like everything I came across was a hot take lacking nuance.

It comes and goes... Some weeks people can/will surprise you. Some topics... I think it's better to just leave the mob alone and let them have their echo chamber.

Having a good idea what opinions you're likely to see doesn't mean there's no point to asking. Certain opinions being prevalent is expected in any community. Any time I make a post, I can be pretty sure there will be certain kinds of responses, but there are typically some that surprise me also.

If you find that the community mentality is so entrenched that people are hostile or disparaging, just block the most offensive profiles and move on with your day.

I block quite a few profiles every day. That's just how it is these days, when charlatans can convince millions of people to vote and vehemently influence against their own self interest.