My &quot;social math&quot; comment was directed at this comment that you made:<p>&gt; I make an effort to be sufficiently even handed that only a committed partisan could take offense<p>not at attacking the contents of the book that you are discussing in your original post. I have not read that book, therefore I am not on sufficient ground to debate its contents.<p>On the other hand, your idea that you have been &quot;sufficiently even handed&quot; requires more explanation. From what I&#x27;ve read from you in this comment thread, that appears to mean, &quot;I&#x27;ve made comments that people all over the political spectrum might not like, therefore somehow upsetting someone on the &#x27;left&#x27; <i>and</i> someone on the &#x27;right&#x27; balances out to upsetting no one. Therefore, only extremely committed zealots will be upset by my comments.&quot; This is the &quot;social math&quot; that does not work.<p>&gt; Sorry if I tipped a sacred cow. I thought this was hacker news not reddit.<p>I could direct the same comment at you. Making comments like this is meant to put me on the defensive. You&#x27;re claiming that I&#x27;m acting like an &quot;irrational Redditor&quot; rather than a &quot;intelligent HN reader.&quot; Ending all of your comments with the equivalent of, &quot;I&#x27;m just saying the truth that no one wants to hear&quot; gives you more in common with Trump that you may like to admit.