zlacker

>>apolli+(OP)
I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work.

(downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....)

>>pksdjf+cJ3
Please don't post political flamebait to Hacker News, and please don't downvote-bait. Both those things are in the site guidelines, and if you'd review and follow them, we'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>>dang+zK3
Doesn't that apply to the submission about Atwood, though? It seems to me the "political flamebait" rule is applied rather selectively on HN.

>>pksdjf+xL3
No. Work with political implications and articles about it are just that, not 'flamebait'. 'Old lady I disagree with lol' is "political flamebait" only through an exceptionally stoic application of the principle of charity.

>>pvg+bO3
I honestly don't understand the distinction? The article is legit, because somehow it has authority by being published in a random media outlet? Is that it? Whereas my opinion is "flamebait" because I don't have authority?

Yes, I disagree with her. Not because of her old age, but because she seriously claimed the scenario of Handmaid's Tale was near. There were people demonstrating in Handmaid's Tale costumes, and she was cheering them on.

If anything, THAT is "political flamebait" - claiming we are entering Handmaid's Tale territory. It was and is ridiculous (unless you believe fundamentalist Islam will take over eventually, which for PC reasons I assume we don't), and that is why I don't hold much stock in her writings anymore. Not because of her old age.

And the article is applauding her for "political flamebait", so by extension, it pretty much also is "political flamebait".

That's my opinion anyway. But I'm sure it will be considered "political flamebait" by HN.

>>pksdjf+XO3
The distinction is the article is some personal recollections about an author whose, you know, actual literary work many (including plenty who don't agree with her) consider important and your comment is a generic dismissal barely even related to said article. As distinctions go, it doesn't seem like a very difficult one to make.

>>pvg+wR3
What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't mention her age at all.

>>pksdjf+g86
I didn't mention her age at all.

"I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age" is about half your comment.