I hate that. I dont think it requires an existing back-and-forth either. If you say something different than the person you're replying to, they assume you mean the opposite of what they believe, presumably because that's easier than untangling the web of agreements and disagreements, errors and truths and unknowns, that exist between any two real people...

If you're reading this, for the love of all that is sane, next time you make a comment, reply to what the other person actually says, not what you think they mean. If you feel the need to respond to something unsaid, make it explicit.

Everything seems to deteriorate to a fight between parties. Rational argumentation that contributes to the presented subject becomes rare. Instead you see the pro/con, fanboy/hateboy 'debates' with low signal to noise ratio. I guess the political system (government vs. opposition, left vs. right, ...) has had a negative influence on public discussion in general. People increasingly think that public discussion means the clash of parties that fight against each other until there is a winner and a loser. The popular TV debates are based on that format.

Well, that's also a part of communication. Snapping into the back and forth mindset isn't constructive, but there are plenty of times when someone replies to me and I can't quite parse whether they're explicitly agreeing with me and/or adding context or arguing with me without spelling that out. I tend to take those as learning examples of how to improve my clarity of speech.