Instead of trying to treat the conversation as having value to both parties it became another instant for you to come in and moralize about a situation you don’t understand.
How incredibly arrogant of you.
(I suppose you think being called out on your arrogance is also “uncivilized”; once more you would be wrong)
> they want to squeeze every story into a large conversation so they can take the moral high ground against straw man arguments
> Here's a policy recommendation: don't run your mouth on topics you don't know much about
I am not insane in thinking this is an abrasive way of presenting one's arguments.
We can be civil and yet abrasively disagree. That’s… sort of the point of civility.
If you can’t handle discussing ideas or accept that you might offend others with your ignorance then perhaps don’t engage in conversations.
- don't live here (it appears you live in Europe?) - don't know anything about the local politics - don't want to listen when anyone tries to tell them - don't know much about the justice system (including the difference between jail vs prison) - use ham-fisted statistics like national incarceration rates but... - don't account for enormous variables (hint: guns), or... - weighting of prior sentences (it's a rolling average obviously)
But surprise! they want to squeeze every story into a large conversation so they can take the moral high ground against straw man arguments no one was making. Like this one:
> Why would you not want more of your citizens to live fuller, more accomplished lives rather than rotting in shitty prisons?
You took time out of your day to write that comment to some that told you they supported carceral reform. Heck, you even quoted me saying that I wanted carceral reform and thought "Nah, this guy needs my input about on whether we should let people rot in prison."
Here's a policy recommendation: don't run your mouth on topics you don't know much about. Greetings from New York.