You’ve done the same thing you accuse them of doing. You also “somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imagin

You’ve done the same thing you accuse them of doing. You also “somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win”.” They asked "Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?" — it wasn’t a statement that I could read into. Unlike the combination of statements they replied too. >There's people in the world who believe it's justified. (russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine) >Even if somehow you could prove that stance as being morally incorrect … Implies that proof is needed to call Ukrainian genocide morally incorrect. If that is not what you meant, then I would be curious to also know what was meant, not because Ukraine-Russia, my emotions don't have a dog in that fight and I won't be jumping into it--simply for better understanding of the phrasing/wording, not a big deal thou tbh. I, personally, read their response as being confused to the implications and posing questions asking for clarification. The ending part about being comfortable sharing that position, I would take as an emotional bit that should be discarded if following the rules of the site to participate in good faith (not assuming the worst) due to their stated closeness to the situation. (I also don’t agree with the wording of the sentence before the part you say is loaded, I think it was a poor choice of words; not to the point of using antagonism as a response though) Maybe you have your own closeness to something that would make your sounding off on genocide more palpable (somehow)..but was not stated, so them asking for clarification was not at all assuming the worst. Maybe you also used a poor choice of words, but instead of saying so when someone questioned it you went into this “gotcha ‘win’” thing you accuse them of. It. is. as. tiring. as. things. the. “left”. does. Both "sides" simply do it in their own ways.