Its absurd to take someone's opinion on an a completely unrelated issue and then apply it as a blanket denunciation of all their opinions or speech. Having an unorthodox opinion, even being a flat earther, says next to nothing about your expertise or knowledge in other areas. Bobby Fischer held many opinions that many would denounce: but if he was recorded speaking about the best chess openers then there is no reason to factor in his opinions on Semitic people groups. The two topics simply aren't related and it's unlikely that one is affected by the other. Likewise it's unlikely that this opinion piece on "sugar babies" is affected by the author's opinions regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 US presidential election. You cannot simply hop from one conclusion to another with no explanation and expect others to agree that you are making a cogent argument.

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.