zlacker

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+(OP)
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+ra3
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.