> the entire universe of people you disagree with. My comment was focused on two specific people in positions of high trust engaged in violent rhetoric who sho

> the entire universe of people you disagree with. My comment was focused on two specific people in positions of high trust engaged in violent rhetoric who should be accountable, which is very on topic of this whole discussion. And I wouldn't be talking about Elon Musk or Donald Trump but for their positions of trusted power. If they were not the world's richest man and POTUS I wouldn't care what their rhetoric is. But because of their stations their words demand scrutiny far more than those of teachers or doctors. If we're not going to scrutinize them, I don't see why we're going after regular citizens and holding them to a higher standard. > The scope of the discussion is much narrower than that You’d like it to be that narrow, but you can’t circumscribe the discussion to only be about things you’re comfortable with. > I carefully read and assessed your entire post That may be true but no one can confirm because your dismissal consisted of a single line, a summary. > I am stopping here because A substantive discussion can be had but not when the rulebook is being quoted to shut it down in lieu of dialog. Cheers!