I can admit when I’m wrong. This is one of those times. My memory does not match the facts. Forget buckeyes. I thought of a better example. Remember The Jerk?
A man from a charity comes in wanting money to rid a country of plague and famine. Navin R Johnson says things simply cannot be that bad. The man shows him a large photograph. Navin screams in fear and frantically writes a check.
The next man seeking money needs it to buy new leather seats for his private plane. Because of what Navin has just seen, this strikes him as silly, shallow and selfish.
I understand your analogy but I don’t see why it shows a problem. If someone goes to the safe zone with trivialities then their topic will not gain any traction - comments (threadshits) calling the OP out for being trivial will not be made - does that lead to a problem somehow? Who is harmed?
Say someone makes a topic about the death of one’s child, seeking support in her loss. The next topic is about another poster being told she’s a bad parent, and seeking support and affirmation that she is a good parent. A third topic is made by someone who is uncomfortable with their new look and wants opinions without toxicity.
The new look topic gets closed and the OP is offered to have it moved to MPSIMS/IMHO where toxicity isn’t allowed anyways, but criticism is. The other two topics stay.
Do you think it would be offensive/insensitive to have those two topics juxtaposed next to each other? Loss of a child v. I’m not a bad parent?