Oh right. There's nothing wrong with generalised statements at all; in fact they're mandatory for communicating. We can't explain the whole world every time we speak. They work really well in face-to-face conversations or over the phone.

But people in online spaces, especially Lemmy and Reddit, often miss implications, see nuance as weakness, and will jump on it. It's just the nature of the platform. Some people are like this in real life too, but it's easier to just "talk it out" and clarify what you meant if they misunderstood.

Personally, I just accept that people will take issue with my comments and deal with it. But I'll break down which parts of your statement were generalised.

consuming sugar can lead to type 2 diabetes

• What kind of sugar? The implication is added refined sugar, but people with nutrition backgrounds might take offence. There's many other kinds like whole fresh fruit is considered protective.
• How often does it need to be consumed? The implication is people eating significant amounts of added sugar per day, I think 50g (1.7oz) is the current upper limit recommended; but people who have 1tsp sugar in their coffee in the morning might take offence. A small amount is usually fine.
• Is sugar the only cause? The implication is that sugar is just one of many risk factors, but some people might read it as sugar being the only cause. There's many factors that can lead to type 2 'beetus, such as: lack of exercise, obesity, genetics, comorbidities, etc.

So, a tighter, more specific version might look like:

Consuming excessive refined sugar can increase your risk of developing type-2 diabetes.

Can't poke as many holes in that, but it hardly rolls off the tongue. Again nothing wrong with your version at all, just explaining why some people might have taken issue with it.