Now next time you are thinking about a useless post, imagine the downvotes, the reply, and then the bit where you actually post something useful.
But then just post the useful bit.
Also there was no strawman argument in my comment unless you make an assumption that is wrong going into the reading of it. I made an independent argument formulated based on how I perceived and analyzed the topic that the OA was addressing. I did not misrepresent the author's position, nor did I claim to refute the narrow point of his article. I was intentionally not addressing his narrow core claim (dealing with the change in mainstream media terminology, theorized to have been done in order to become more in alignment with a desired change in the public narrative by vested interests) -- by intent -- and instead addressing the larger issue and assumptions made by the OA's article. And I put a lot of thought and care into what I wrote -- with no cursing, name-calling and with good spelling and grammar (generally) -- and don't think it deserved to be downvoted into karma penalty land.
Votes should be based on the quality of the contribution to a discussion, not on a mere I-agree/I-disagree or on emotional reactions.
This is in comparison to the data-free explanation of the article, that an unspecified conspiracy in the NYT sold out to an unspecified faction in the Bush 42 administration under unspecified pressure. It's not even a conspiracy theory. Rolling Stone and Drudge would require better sourcing to print such vacuous trollop. HN is a poor venue for politics, and an even poorer venue for empty political traffic-whoring.