How do you figure? The person you're replying to is pointing out that the majority of people profiled for the article seem to be doing just fine: they are saving at a decent (some at a more-than-decent) rate, and are living fairly comfortably. Lecturing them about something they're already doing seems pointless.

Only two of the people profiled in the article seem to actually be struggling, and might get lectures they're tired of. If the others are getting these lectures, then whoever is doing the lecturing clearly doesn't know how well they're actually doing!

You are replying to something that the grandparent did not actually write.

> when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?

Are you aware that something can be low even when there are other things that are even lower? Also I don't see where the parent mentioned "$40,000" at all, so maybe you clicked the reply button on the wrong post?

...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?

Wow, this is unrealistically antagonistic. I think you need some qualifiers somewhere in that assertion. Anybody who simply "wants to read an article with this title"? Every example to the contrary?

Maybe stop assuming absolutism where most people would never intend it? Interpret posts with the most charitable interpretation possible given what's written? (Y'know, like the HN guidelines require of us in order to keep conversations civil?)

If that was indeed what you were doing, no. But that was not what you were doing.