You made a statement about the intrinsic nature of a social relation: that hierarchy is inherently oppressive. I do not believe that relation holds such an intrinsic attribute, so I responded by listing several examples of hierarchy that, in my view, do not inherently contain oppression. To me, saying oppression is inherent to hierarchy is similar to saying flammability is inherent to liquid. There are many flammable liquids, but liquid as such is not inherently flammable; that depends on other factors, such as chemical composition. Likewise, there are many oppressive hierarchies, but that does not mean oppression is intrinsic to hierarchy as such. The fastest way to challenge a universal claim like that is to list counterexamples.

You could have read/responded to that in several ways. For example, you could have explained what you mean by hierarchy if you do not think the relation between nuclear plant staff, doctors and nurses, or parent and child counts as hierarchy. You could also have explained why those examples should be distinguished from the kind of hierarchy you are criticizing, or shown where oppression exists in those examples in a way I may not recognize. Those would all be substantive responses to the point I was making.

Also, I very much did not dogpile you and had no intention of doing so. I was the first person to respond, and at no point did I insult you. My first response may not have been as polite or elaborated as possible, but it was meant as a counterargument, not as mockery or an attempt to shut you down.

I understand, but once you cool down I think it's worth revisiting, if not with anyone here, on your own.