Summarily dismissing someone's opinion as "political" and out of bounds for discussion is pretty much the height of trampling curiosity.

I engaged with your post in several ways, the primary way being 1) I agreed with the substance of your post and 2) I extended your list of "people held in positions of high trust who should be more careful with their words" to include the president and the world's richest man, who are in fact engaged in divisive rhetoric at the moment, far worse and more impactful than any teacher or doctor. That's very related.

If you didn't want to engage with me that's fine, but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies, is lame. Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page

> I agreed with the substance of your post

No, you didn't. You used it as a jumping-off point to attack the entire universe of people you disagree with.

> but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies

This is entirely disingenuous. The scope of the discussion is much narrower than that, and does not give you cause to bring in the actions of Trump, Musk, "MAGA" as a group, etc. etc. etc.

> Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page

It is true, because I did not "summarily dismiss your opinion"; I carefully read and assessed your entire post, and considered its form entirely inappropriate. Your opinion is not actually relevant to that judgment. I would be saying the same thing if you were speaking out against whatever other groups in the same fashion.

I am stopping here because

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

and it's abundantly clear that this is no longer possible.

> 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!