I didn't hear "vitriol". Your language was more jocular and incredulous than vitriolic or offensive. Those vernacular terms for sexual behaviour are neither h

I didn't hear "vitriol". Your language was more jocular and incredulous than vitriolic or offensive. Those vernacular terms for sexual behaviour are neither here nor there in a site frequented by linguistic, semantic, and ontological virtuosos. The comment you were replying to doesn't respect "the politeness of this place." It is base identity politics, or wantonly offensive ignorance, couched in some form of "acceptable" language which seeks to describe a logical chain of thought. But the logic is jello nailed to the wall. It's not even sham science. It's a red neck fairy story. That's why I considered it an abuse of moderator privileges to downvote your comment. Anybody concerned about the standard of discourse on HN should feel the same, or be able to defend the "logic" you were responding to cogently, which they can't because it is the rhetorical equivalent of a stream of shit from a horses asshole. If I am to "assume good faith", which is always an advisable thing to do, the bizarre fairy story stream springs from ignorance of "the homosexuals", not malice. The downvoting of your comment is a different matter.