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.

>>pvg+RX7
I forgot I mentioned the age - but still, it is in the opposite sense. It is not part of the reason I "dismiss" her now, I only mentioned it to soften the criticism.

In any case, why shouldn't her actions be relevant? To me, it changed my opinion about her. Why wouldn't it be relevant for others, too?

>>pksdjf+I49
Maybe they are relevant but you'd have to put it in some way that describes their relevance. "Old lady, trump, fite me!" is not a meaningful attempt to start a discussion which is why you got groused at by a mod and flagged by users. It's not even clear she ever actually made the type of claim you're describing but the form of the comment is so poopy that's mostly beside the point.

>>pvg+gc9
Again, that is not what I said. I said she endorsed a specific claim about the development in US society, that is absolutely ridiculous. It has nothing to do with Trump or her age.

And what do you mean by "it is not even clear"? That is your criticism, that you flat out don't believe me? Then just say so right away, and don't make up phony reasons to dismiss my tweet.

I don't care enough about you to google for her specific statements, though. If you don't believe me, fine, whatever.

And my comment is "poopy"? I mentioned a specific reason why I don't hold her in high regard anymore. Yeah, she is a woman and she is old, but I am still allowed to not revere her. I know that is hard for liberals to grasp.

>>pksdjf+Hmc
Let me reproduce your original comment in full here, just for easy reference.

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....)

On its face, the intent of this seems inflammatory and you got the votes, flags and moderator talking-to for your efforts. This is definitely unpleasant - nobody likes being berated in public and I sympathize. As psychologist Don Vincenzo Coccotti puts it:

That smarts, doesn't it? [...] Fucks you all up. You get that pain shootin' through your brain, your eyes fill up with water. That ain't any kind of fun

In my personal experience, the effect does not last days but I'm no psychologist. Perhaps it's an explanation for the long sequence of curious defenses you've offered. Briefly summarized, they include:

- The comment isn't flamebait, the real flamebait is the article itself.

- The comment is not dismissive.

- The comment does not mention her age.

- The comment does mention her age but calling her viewpoint ridiculous while suggesting it may be a result of age-related cognitive decline is practically a compliment.

- The comment has nothing to do with Trump or her age.

- The comment is not an inaccurate caricature of her views but your interlocutors are not worthy of being shown the error of their interpretation.

- It is wrong to call the comment poopy.

Here I want to point out I didn't call the comment poopy, I called its form poopy. Whatever you meant by it, it's expressed in ways the HN guidelines strongly disapprove of. You'd be right to object that calling the form of a comment poopy is also contrary to the guidelines. I appologize and want to assure you it was intended strictly in the Pickwickian sense - a lapse into familiarity I hope you can understand and forgive in light of our long conversation.

I'll also admit I have some trouble believing that someone whose previous commentary here includes a suggestion Wikipedia is controlled by feminists and 'SJW's once held Atwood and her work in high regard but recently changed their mind. I'm prepared to accept this is unreasonable bias on my end.

Lastly, I agree with you that if liberals are, as you suggest, responsible for your comment, they deserve our opprobrium and contempt.