Spamming the same thing while avoiding answering the "where's the hate" question with an actual argument, makes you the one breaking the rule you referred to:
>" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
If you had a strong plausible interpretation you'd have given one.
Spamming the same thing while avoiding answering the "where's the hate" question with an actual argument, makes you the one breaking the rule you referred to:
>" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
If you had a strong plausible interpretation you'd have given one.