Here's an interesting thought: do you find the notion/anecdote regarding the returned servicemen insulting?
Because to me, he's applied an analogy describing a certain behaviour to both groups: but you find one "a political insult" and presumably one "an accurate description, or at least an acceptable anecdote".
It appears to me, as a non-american, the analogy is not only apt but accurate, but i understand how one may find it insulting.
But then, I also understand how a returning veteran might find this entire thread/idea insulting when applied to them.
But in both cases...that doesn't make the point deviate or approach the truth any more or less.
Personally, I believe there is a "rational voter paradox" at play in both of our societies political cultures (I'm australian for what its worth).
We find certain ideas insulting and degrading when applied to the notion of "voter", because we carry a political ideology of sanctity (the rational voter) around the voters decision. Because we are partisan, any attempt to analyse voter activity that draws away from the rational automatically puts you in the camp of "the other", which makes you an enemy, which makes everything an insult.
Hint that voters voted for trump because they were anxious and threw their lot in with someone giving out soothing epithets and its an insult.
That same idea however, returned service men being anxious about the future and being duped into throwing their lot into schools that make grand promises...and its an observation. Even a completely legitimate thread.
I've had the same thing happen to me a few times: express what I think is a fact, and been told that this is not the place for such hostile speak, insults, or comments.
I will leave HN today with this thought from my professional experience: If you're an analyst, and you actually have to predict these things, don't give anything but politeness to the people who find such observations to be insults, even though you know they're wrong, and use them if they're predictive :P