Can you explain how my following argument impugns the character of the author? The article claims to be "about how Stalinism and the gulags are alive and well i

Can you explain how my following argument impugns the character of the author? The article claims to be "about how Stalinism and the gulags are alive and well in Russia today". My counterclaim is that the article sets up a false moral equivalence from the start measuring a death of a lawyer to events at scale of Holocaust or Stalinist repressions. If you read my comment, it is obvious that it attacks the editors of Foreign Policy -- NOT the author. The author is entitled to his opinion but Foreign Policy should have reconsidered publishing the article that makes such outlandish claims. Further, why are you so being so defensive that you feel the need to call my opinion crap? If I feel offended by how the author belittles most horrific events of the 20th century I will let people know about it. It is up to the readers to form their opinion about my reaction to the article. While my claim doesn't attack the character of the article, you are explicitly defending him by interpreting his intentions to label the leading statement a hyperbole. How do you know that the author wanted to set up a hyperbole?