Maybe the reason you are getting pushback is your tactic of insults. Blowhard, HN crank squad and anti-science nuts... The best way to represent a position here is through dialog, not name calling. Emotional jabs tend to undermine your argument.

Snark is going to be the end of us. It simultaneously provides a dopamine rush to the snarker, a flash of anger in the snarkee, completely destroys any context of understanding or potential for vulnerability and change. Everyone just goes shield up and battles.

We have the greatest interpersonal communication capability the world has ever seen and we piss it away on insults.

Anti-science denialists use pearl-clutching to slow down truth while their lies zip around the world.

It’s gotten to the point on HN where the “highbrow lowbrow” is dominating all discussion, because you can’t outright call a lie a lie here. It wouldn’t be “polite”. But it’s pretty easy to toss off a quick, thoughtless dismissal of any particular subject that sounds smart and polite.

He “added” a big pile of misinformation[1]. If I add three paragraphs of speculation about how deoxygenation is actually caused by vaccines am I also “adding to this discussion”?

[1] as documented by NeedBigTea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21736510