Stating a fact is indignant hysteria? I was replying to his comment which was a lie.
> outright harassment
I'll come back to this.
> a commenter over something completely irrelevant
OK. From OP:
"The man deserved what he got, but there are dozens of accounts that were his "executors" - doing the actual harassment for him in many cases - who got off scot-free, while he remains banned. There is no consistency."
From the article:
"However, the decision to ban Milo because of the actions of a few of his 500,000 followers (if that is indeed why this occurred) is horribly inconsistent."
Both of these statements are semantically similar—there is inconsistency.
That's an example of where the comment is low quality due to the OP not reading the article. So I reject that it's irrelevant.
Back to the harassment. I stated facts as plainly as I could. If he/she finds facts intimidating then I would say it's on the OP to examine what he/she said & did, and not on me to ignore or use mental gymnastics to defend incorrect statements.