I would say that in this forum we try to be charitable to each other and it's certainly the way I like to conduct myself.

The poster you're replying to has so far merely provided you with an opportunity to clarify or expand on what you would consider "extremist violent rhetoric".

We're all pretty curious people here, and I would say reasonably opinionated, so I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask you to clarify your position.

We're not going to get to the high level of discourse we like and expect in this space without a bit of curiosity and generous assumptions to our fellow posters =)...

Like I said, when you vaguely point to something in the Zeitgeist I have to guess. I made my assumption clear so don’t try to make this into a gotcha.

Specifically extremist, violent, political[1] rhetoric is subsumed by political complaints in general. So if you mean conflate as in draw an equivalence then that is clearly a wrong inference on your part.

[1] This adjective wasn’t in your original comment hence my guess.

You don't seem to be following the site rule of "charitable interpretation" here. This reads more like "legalistic nitpicky interpretation" - that is, like bad faith.

(Yes, good faith/charitable interpretation can lead to misunderstandings when some things are left unsaid. No, I don't think maximum nitpickiness is the answer to that.)

I have no idea what you’re talking about.