Sure, if that's what it's saying.

I think it's pretty presumptuous to think a world salad went "over" any of our heads, when a simpler explanation is that the point was obscured by unnecessarily complex language.

English isn't even my first language, so if I have no problem parsing that, it's possible. Even if something is "unnecessarily" complex, what necessitates knee-jerk responses or downvotes?

> so if I have no problem parsing that, it's possible

That's still assuming your interpretation was what the writer intended. As a native English speaker, I can tell you that it's not 100% clear.

> what necessitates knee-jerk responses or downvotes?

The meaning of a down vote is not defined by HN itself, so it's personal. For me, I use it based on value. I up-vote comments that add to or improve the discussion. I down-vote comments that add nothing.

I did not down-vote the root comment here. I replied because I found the content to be locked away by the presentation, and the content seemed to be a worthwhile part of the discussion of the article.

> That's still assuming your interpretation was what the writer intended. As a native English speaker, I can tell you that it's not 100% clear.

I think your your summary of the comment doesn't really match the comment.

English is my third language and I had no problem parsing that either.

On the other hand, I was taught early on not to trawl the thesaurus for word substitutions. It’s just pretentious.

In response to the point - a random person isn't a concentrated menacing agency that can be politically targeted, so isn't that demotivating?