That&#x27;s an interesting explanation, and it&#x27;s an astute way of describing tactics that are sometimes employed in political debates. But as applied to this case, I think it fails to address some key issues.<p>1. What reason would HG have to distract from the substantive content in the OP&#x27;s comment?<p>2. HG was not the only person who found OP&#x27;s comment objectionable. Do we all have ulterior motivess?<p>3. There are, I think, <i>objective</i> reasons for finding parts of OP&#x27;s comment objectionable, which HG, myself, and others, have thoroughly expressed elsewhere in this thread. Do you have a response to these substantive points, or are you merely concerned about HG&#x27;s reasons for raising them (and, perhaps, his.&#x2F;her tone in doing so)?<p>I for one think that OP&#x27;s comment is interesting, and I have no interest in distracting from its substance. But I do hope to point out how some unfortunate, casual choice of words may have inadvertently caused harm to other members of our community.<p>I&#x27;d also point out that, like the dictionary attack that you describe, baselessly impugning an opponent&#x27;s motivations is also a tried and true tactic for distracting others from the substance of what they have to say, without meaningfully engaging with it.