Just for the record, I see/use double question marks as a signal of genuine confusion, not necessarily emotional investment.
But even if I was emotionally invested (say, a white friend was affected by this and I was concerned on their behalf) is that automatically wrong?? If I was outraged...kind of like I am now, and just wanted a straight answer, is that not allowed??
Why should it be frowned upon to show any hint of emotion when discussing a sensitive subject, even if your words are otherwise civil?? Apparently civility isn't enough, you have to have the 'correct personality' (and punctuation, apparently) to be allowed to say your piece...?
Here's the thing about that...I don't mind. ._.
I never have; if anyone was angry about what I wrote, and/or wanted to ask me about why I * appeared * to feel a certain way about the issue (because apparently that was the scariest part...), I would have been more than happy to talk to them and explain further, and hopefully get an interesting discussion out of it. That's...kind of the whole point.
Now, for an outside authority to come in and close down the whole discussion, that says more than just "someone might've gotten upset". It says that the topic/viewpoint itself is inherently "too upsetting" by some relatively objective measure, and that the forum would be better off if it didn't exist.
So far I haven't seen justification for a condemnation of that magnitude. The most I've been told is that the way I talk (not the things I say, merely the way I say them) doesn't sit well with certain people...which feels a bit discriminatory, if I'm being honest.
I'm not sure how to make myself consistently meet someone's set of arbitrary standards for how I should speak (mind you, when I get explicitly snippy/sarcastic in less-attention-grabbing art-related topics, it goes completely unnoticed), and I really don't think it's fair to demand that from me.