I'm answering so others who read this can know my reasoning, not to explain to you, because you know exactly what you are writing.
The rhetoric that Sweden, Germany, UK and France are Muslim countries is exclusivley used by very far-right standing people to fearmonger and hate against immigrants. What would it even mean for these countries to be Muslim? Germany has literally a party with "Christian" in their name in the government. You still hear the bells of Christian churches everywhere.
Accusing people you disagree with of being "very far right" to automatically discredit them without arguments, is the ultimate bad faith cheat code of online debates. If you want, we can have this conversation over another medium where I can share you the data from government sources that prove my point as being mathematically and logically sound, and not "far right". THere's no point continuing here since HN anyway bans such discussions as inflammatory without right to appeal regardless of what data/arguments you bring to the table, so even if you win the argument, you still loose.
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.
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.
