I think part of the issue here is that a plain English reading of the GDPR implies such appalling totalitarian overreach that most people find it hard to believe that it can really be what's meant.

I mean, you've just agreed with my reading that the GDPR gives me the power to reach into your personal inbox and censor your records of communications with me. That sort of power for bad actors to carry out historical revisionism on what until now we'd've thought of as someone else's data is unprecedented and - at least to me - a pretty frightening threat to freedom of information and a culture of truth. And meanwhile we've got people running around Hacker News saying "GDPR is all wonderful, it's just common-sense privacy protections, and if your business isn't spying on users without their consent and selling their data you'll be fine".

You're clearly confident that the (to me, somewhat dystopian) interpretations we discussed just above will hold up in court. I'm not, even though they worry me and seem to me to be the most straightforward plain English reading of the bill. That doubt - and associated anger at the failure of the EU to bring greater clarity to these sorts of points before now - seem to me to be reasonable, and not a worthy target for condescension.