There is exactly one non-Orwell link in the article, and it's to an article with this headline: "Sales of George Orwell's 1984 surge after Kellyanne Conway's 'alternative facts'"
The first explicitly political thing in the OP is "alternative facts"; so that's where I grabbed that from.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Meanwhile, those of us who have read it will remember that 1984 dwells on hard-left totalitarianism and its habit of doing things like censorship, the desire for unitary thinking, interfering with disagreement by controlling the language and so on.
Your comment doesn't actually rebut anything about what the OP said, but does try to lower the visibility of his views (suppressing speech) and does attack an entire class of speech on the grounds of "divisiveness" and "destructiveness" (unitary thinking).
Trump is many things but hard-left is not one of them. Stupid phrasing today by his press guy aside, Trump's path to victory was built on a repudiation of 1984 style tactics:
• Language control: political correctness, where words and phrases are redefined or suppressed through taboo
• The 5-minutes hate: the establishment against Russia
• Loyalty to the party: in our world the closest equivalent to a vast unaccountable power structure would be called "Washington" or "the elite".
The parallels aren't perfect by any means; Trump loves surveillance just like Democrats do.
What do you think I saw in the OP's comment?
> doesn't actually rebut anything about what the OP said
I mean, I wasn't trying to. I said that explicitly.
> but does try to lower the visibility of his views > does attack an entire class of speech on the grounds of "divisiveness" and "destructiveness" (unitary thinking).
I mean, yes? But it sounds like you're confusing divisiveness with disagreement. I wouldn't quite say that Mikeb85's comment is trolling, but it's getting close enough, and yeah, I'll attack that category of speech on those grounds.
Your entire post is an excellent example of disagreement without divisiveness, and is constructive to the HN community.
Context is a thing, and you even make use of it in your comment. You have set up a false scenario where (according to you) we are only allowed discuss what is explicit in headline, yet "alternative facts" isn't even in the headline.
If you seriously believe that comment sections should not discuss the context around its subject, you are wasting your time here because there is an entire internet you there for you to police.
First - I'm straight up not talking about only the headline.
Strawman'ing is a real thing, and Mikeb85's comment is doing it. The article has six sentences, and then a bunch of Orwell links.
Only one of those sentences is about anything other than Orwell, and that sentence is a link to an article about Orwell, and how "alternative facts" sounds a lot like Newspeak.
At no point is either the original article, or its sole political link, making any kind of comment of argument on any of the things in Mikeb85's comment.
Context is great! Establish some, and then present your points, arguments, and comments.
This is a headline and an article about "alternative facts", relating them to a book about comprehensive "alternative fact" propaganda. Not about any of things that you listed.
You didn't add any meaningful information to the discussion, but have added divisive and heavily argued opinions, in a way that only furthers their divisiveness.
This is not a comment on your opinions. This is a comment about whether expressing those specific opinions on this specific news item and in that specific manner was constructive or destructive to this community; I'm saying it's destructive.