- It opens with clear derision of its opponents’ main point as a “meme”. Not a good look out of the gate.
- It slips from talking about ‘them’ to talking about ‘you’, and ends with a direct challenge to the ego of those it disagrees with, suggesting their ability to provide, to “cook”, for their household is more at fault than Sysco.
- It is oblivious to the continuous decrease in effective household spending power and increase in household hours worked since Reagan, suggesting that, regardless of the author’s intent, that the resulting post is either a corporate shill or a capitalism evangelism piece.
- It uses a variety of conversational warfare tactics of argumentation that I don’t view as acceptable for submissions to HN. Rhetorical styles are not exempt from judgment, etc. (This alone would be sufficient cause for me to consider flagging it.)
I disagree, and think it's usually better to discuss articles like this than to flag them, but I appreciate your excellent explanation. Flagged or not, your explanation would have been a great standalone comment on the article.
- It opens with clear derision of its opponents’ main point as a “meme”. Not a good look out of the gate.
- It slips from talking about ‘them’ to talking about ‘you’, and ends with a direct challenge to the ego of those it disagrees with, suggesting their ability to provide, to “cook”, for their household is more at fault than Sysco.
- It is oblivious to the continuous decrease in effective household spending power and increase in household hours worked since Reagan, suggesting that, regardless of the author’s intent, that the resulting post is either a corporate shill or a capitalism evangelism piece.
- It uses a variety of conversational warfare tactics of argumentation that I don’t view as acceptable for submissions to HN. Rhetorical styles are not exempt from judgment, etc. (This alone would be sufficient cause for me to consider flagging it.)