I'm attacking one specific comment (yours), linking to the HN guidelines to say why.
You're ranting about "armchair expositors of bullshit ranting about dark matter being a hoax perpetrated by cultural Marxists" [any examples of this happening?], claiming that posting a comment on the internet means the author "believes they are a subject matter expert", presumably reasoning that "posting on the internet" is something only people who believe they are experts do? Claiming that people "wear their ignorance as a badge of elitism", because "not clicking a link" is somehow a claim of eliteness? You're accusing people of "thinking themselves superior", because "not clicking a link" is the same as saying "people who read the link are plebian"? (This isn't encouraging people to read articles, this is "everyone else is so dumb, eyeroll").
In your terms, you're pushing everyone under the water. I'm pushing you and people who post similar "everyone except me is dumb" rants, under the water.
Except the entire point of my comment (fairly, rant) was to tell the people who refuse to read Twilight that they should actually try reading Twilight instead of asking their circle of friends who probably haven't read Twilight but insist that it's garbage because all modern literature is infantile commercial pap whether it's worth reading.
>If that's correct and they don't know how wrong they are, how are they going to identify as the target of your rant and change?
They won't. They'll do what you're doing, attack me personally and lecture me and, ironically, attempt the exact same "status grab" you're accusing me of. Except something tells me you'll wind up with far more invisible kudo points at the end of the day than I will, because defending Hacker News and refusing to admit its flaws is always a better social strategy than criticizing it. Who's pushing whom under the water here?