The comment is non-offensive and draws an analogy between two organizations which used propaganda effectively. Comparing Mr. Gruber's writings to those of fellow travelers is a legitimate comment on the possibility of editorial bias in the original article. I
It is useful because it places the article within a larger historical context. It extends the content, and on HN, that is appropriate.
My apologies, this was not intended to be inflammatory but the quotes out of the article and the comments were raised to point out that these kinds of baseless and biased comments from the author detract from the objective quality of the information previously presented in the article and lower the credibility of the author and even the information that the author presents.
I don’t see how this is a solid defense against GP comment. You’re criticism of a source your unfamiliar with follows very tribal / ideological lines, which you admit to, but don’t seem to think that this is itself way more biased than the bias you’re warning of in the source.
At the very least, you’re comfortable with knee jerk judgements based on personal ideology, and I don’t think that’s good for any discussion.
People's associations are part of their actions and a relevant part of the context of their writing. The commenter didn't necessarily entirely dismiss the article or the argument because of it, but it is potentially valuable information to have.
It's not necessary to evaluate every work completely stripped of context to engage with it honestly. Articles are written by people, with motivations for writing them, and nothing is gained by pretending otherwise.
my comment was in agreement and support for the article and not a critic of it. the article was pretty awesome! I should have made that clearer in my comment, apologies for that.
I don’t want my criticism to be misinterpreted. The issue with the article is that it is lacking in factual substance compared to strong condemning language and speculation. This makes it seem less credible.
The choice of language in an isolated sense is fine. Unique writing styles can be more interesting to read, overall.
You're contracting yourself and just being argumentative. The whole context is their international assistance work, and there is nothing but praise in that article. Meanwhile the article just brushes aside their initial deceit which greatly magnified the problem.
Your judgement of the article was nearly entirely informed by who wrote it rather than its contents. That's a good way to continue a culture war, not a good way to discover the truth.
I implore you to consider the well-founded facts on both sides, not to claim this piece has absolutely nothing worth saying.
It is useful because it places the article within a larger historical context. It extends the content, and on HN, that is appropriate.
reply