Looks like you're getting downvoted, even though your statement is basically correct. It's very sad that it's getting harder and harder to have a fruitful discussion here on HN. Some people are more interested in downvoting based on their immediate emotional reaction, rather than having a rational, honest discussion.

If you disagree with someone, then reply to their post and try to have civilized discourse, don't just immediately try to censor them.

Eh, I'm used to it. I don't particularly care about karma points. I'm proud of my unfashionable opinions. Each one is the result of careful thought, aware from the blare of popular media and popular opinion.

The herd instinct is getting stronger, and the rush to censor unfashionable opinions increases on HN. Which is funny, because one of the best essays by pg is 'what you can't say'. Closely followed by 'mind the gap'. Which essentially says that inequality is a sign of a healthy society, because lack of inequality shows the innovators and risk takers have gone elsewhere or closed up shop.

Maybe it was my tablet spelling mistakes in my post.

From my point of view, you were more likely downvoted because you singled out a single sentence of your parent's (thoughtful and lengthy) comment to knock down in bad faith, rather than making an interesting argument about wealth distribution and inequality.

Your views about these things aren't at all unfashionable on this site or in American society at large, and many who disagree with them still think they are reasonable and worth discussing. Your comment just didn't express your perspective very well!

I didn't downvote you, but your post was seriously crippled by the tablet spelling mistakes (especially replacing lie for like).

If you can, I encourage you to edit it.

Edit: also, your argument adscribing the "Orwellian" adjective to the previous post is very strong and can generate negative reactions (like a downvote).

> How could you possibly describe it any other way?

You could describe it in the many thoughtful ways in which the rest of the comment did describe it, for a start.

The comment it was in reply to also made it seem like the idea is to take wealth from a single wealthy individual and bestow it upon a single poor individual, noting that the newly wealthy individual probably doesn't know what to do with it (like many lottery winners). That is clearly not the intention of literally anybody who is in favor of some redistribution of wealth. Rather, they propose many different ways (some of which were mentioned by your parent comment) that wealth would be spread across many less wealthy people.

He was trying to make a subtle point, and you've knowingly interpreted it in the strongest possible way, in order to post a substance-free truism.

To then complain about "orwellian" use of language in the next sentence is just taking the piss.