are you unaware of the meaning of quote marks? They are quoting labels that society will place on them, primarily as a consequence of puritanical thinking acting as a cover up for abuse. What's shameful is hiding the horrors of our reality. I thought their comment was particularly poignant and reflects the actual horrors of abuse when it is uncovered in retrospect, compared to how it was perceived at the time.
We see this countless times in our history, abusers lauded, praised, with status, titles, wealth and popular acclaim. Detractors are ignored, slandered and side-lined, and after the abusers die, it transpires all those hushed whispers were true and the detractors were right all along.
I'm not. Willful (or motivated ignorance based) misinterpretation to create a strawman and then tearing that down in ways that cater to the community's biases is dirt common "bad behavior" in any internet comment section where contributions are scored like they are here.
ah, thank you for the extra context. I appreciate knowing that, its certainly an easier mistake to make without the quotes.
> I'm surprised that someone ran with an uncharitable interpretation like they did.
I am less so, maybe I'm getting old and falling into elderly tropes, but I feel like there's a growing uptick in society with people seeking a platform to moralise, while skimming the content and not understanding it. The short-cuts that were originally just amber/red flags (e.g. like the casualness of throwing out a harsh label like "slut") are starting to become the offense, as opposed to the actual behaviour (the underlying cruelty) that they originally hinted at.
You should be able to edit it now, or email us (hn@ycombinator.com) with an edit we can put in. Probably best to find a different word/phrase to use. It's upsetting to people even if you didn't mean it that way.
