Over time I've increasingly felt the same. I like to delve into the weeds and why people do the things they do, it's my way of reconciling contradictory narratives that all appeal to something that's fact; "seeking truth from facts" basically. But instead I often get people jumping to conclusions or making hyperbolic statements that I'm getting increasingly tired from.

When I recently asked for counternarratives to the Western narrative that explains the jihadist insurgencies in the Sahel ("AES and Russia did too many war crimes, we were right to warn them about the Russians"), the few answers that I did get were short "the French are funding terrorists" narratives, which to me just seems like a mirror of liberals handwaving dissent as "Russian interference".

On Lemmygrad I got a longer response but the only alternative explanation for people joining that jihadist groups was just "poverty", which felt incomplete because not every poor place turns to militancy simply when given the chance. And I still felt like I was being told to just take their word that the Sahel states won't fall like Syria did, where foreign funding of HTS doesn't explain why the Syrian Arab Army just fled and let them take the country.