What has that got to do with this thread?
At this juncture, claims of 2020 election theft are akin to being a Flat Earther. Do you, dear reader, desire to get advice, a hot take on sugar babies, or have anything to do with such a person?
It's at least nice to be aware and have the information.
Further, claiming there may have been issues with or that you personally take issue with the logistics of the last United States presidential election is hardly akin to being a flat earther. The former represents a broad range of perspectives some of which are contrary to the facts and some of which are of a more philosophical or pragmatic nature and are worthy of discussion. The latter is a school of thought which hasn't held any real ground for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. This kind of tattletale rhetoric is contrary to the spirit of serious discussion and debate which HN is known for. If it had not become so common, I would simply write it off as trolling or perhaps your confusion as to the purpose of this site. At this point, however, I think I speak for many when I say that you ought to save that kind of foolishness for either Reddit or Twitter where it will be applauded.
Unsolicited feedback for you, sir, madame, or they @powerslacker: Characterizing things as "absurd" is detrimental to discussion quality in every case across the board. The label is arbitrary and uncurious, making it a poor choice of starting place if your goal is to inform and persuade.
Best wishes, MD.
Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.
It's not detrimental to discussion to point out an absurd statement. I'm not saying absurd in order to be rude, but pointing out that it's a logical error. It's not a poor starting place if my goal is to inform others that the addressed statement is in fact absurd. Since that is exactly what I was attempting to do I'd call it a very reasonable starting place.
I don't care what you assert is "logical." Because you can't even modus ponens correctly.
So, with that being said, I'd say it absolutely compromises their argument here. If the author is gullible enough to fall for garden-variety conspiracy theories, why should I trust their authority on morality? Their rhetorical triangle is broken. They have no credibility, they make no appeals to logic (and contradict themselves) which leaves them only with pathos - the ability to outrage and incense their audience based on emotional appeals.