I don't know anything about this particular author, and it's a good guess that most HN readers don't either.
I gather from your comment that the article is performative bullshit, and it is up to the reader to decide which parts are fiction, which parts are lies presented as facts, which parts are opinions that the author doesn't actually hold, and which parts they actually believe?
That kind of thing can work if the author is writing to some insular audience who understands that it is bullshit. But it will not make for a good discussion when posted to a general audience. How can you have a discussion about anything except the unbearable style, if the text is not to be taken at face value?
I gather from your comment that the article is performative bullshit, and it is up to the reader to decide which parts are fiction, which parts are lies presented as facts, which parts are opinions that the author doesn't actually hold, and which parts they actually believe?
That kind of thing can work if the author is writing to some insular audience who understands that it is bullshit. But it will not make for a good discussion when posted to a general audience. How can you have a discussion about anything except the unbearable style, if the text is not to be taken at face value?