My comment about waterboarding is not irrelevant in a discussion about an article whose topic was "how the topic of waterboarding was treated and when & why a change in the narrative occurred." And especially one in which said article took the stance that waterboarding is torture and therefore evil and therefore always unacceptable by any party and then showed a photo of a Khmer Rouge torture facility as if to imply there were a 1-to-1 correspondence and ethical parity between the actions of the Khmer Rouge (whom most international observers agree tortured thousands of innocent people and murdered at least a million more) and the actions of the US government (in reaction to 9/11 in which Al Qaeda murdered thousands of innocent US citizens) when any reasonable person could spot the differences in the circumstances.

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.