I would agree that replying to others with out of context links pushing a counter-narrative is an unhealthy way to engage others.

Like most others in polarizing discussions I sometimes fall into the trap of misinterpreting what the other say and therefore critiquing what I thought they said where more clarification would be good. Do you think that happened here?

I try to avoid the previously trap, and recognize it. With regards to providing informational links in this particular instance I don’t know how we can make progress across divides without providing links to why we have a different viewpoints, and engage in the other persons arguments and supporting evidence.

If you have any thoughts on how the inconsistencies between the parents claims and what seem to be the well published situation on the ground could be highlighted in a better way that would be helpful. Right now I am reading “how to have impossible conversations” by Bogossian and in general studying why my viewpoint opponents think what they think. Benjamin Boynces series on evergreen is incredibly interesting. Hopefully I’ll learn something good.