> mere curiosity

Well, no. The phrasing suggests some bit of outrage to me, which has its own problems but is still easier to interact with if one is looking to understand their perspective. I suppose it sounds more exclusively like an accusation to you. More likely than either of those is that it’s a combination of several factors which ultimately culminated in the person’s decision to leave their comment.

Regardless, the claim that they must have been making an accusation is speculation which is called out in the guidelines to avoid:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

▲

namaria 10 months ago | parent [-]

What exactly is your point? Am I not allowed to point out the fundamental failure of ethics in jumping to the conclusion that someone who didn't put up a fight when wronged by a vastly more powerful entity is somehow enabling the wrongdoing?

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10 months ago | parent [-]

> What exactly is your point?

Be more open-minded when someone says something you disagree with.

> Am I not allowed to point out the fundamental failure of ethics ... ?

You are allowed to opine. Are other commenters not allowed to do the same?

▲

namaria 10 months ago | parent [-]

This is nearly meaningless. I see you have no point.

	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		You should not be so afraid of engaging with other perspectives. You can choose your own beliefs and it doesn’t hep to close your mind to others. Read the thread back and you may find consistent arguing if you understand that my actual conclusion was written above. Of course, you would have to read comments in good faith and I suspect you would not. I would be foolish to believe you will even try because you it’s obvious by now that you have no such desire to understand other perspectives. I recommend fostering such a desire. You only have pleasant discourse with those you agree with and you cause that problem.