Sure, but you're beating around the bush and not answering on where was the so called "hate"?

It's one thing to accuse someone of not replying to the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", and another thing to accuse someone of "hate", which is a very serious accusation that requires proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, especially in the EU where strong anti libel laws apply.

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

	▲	joe_mamba 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.