I'm still not sure I follow on what you mean about its absurdity. If the point is deep distrust is supposed to result from some absurd reasoning then of course the example is an instance of absurdity. Highlighting that does not bring a new point of view or show how non-absurd reasoning is also supposed to lead to deep distrust in context of the article. It's one thing to say you're unconvinced, nobody can really respond take away anything from that, but it's another to explain why people should agree with your different take instead.
I think we both agree distrust doesn't require a universal underlying motivation but you're continuing to use "distrust" and "deep distrust" interchangeably without explaining why people should consider them interchangeable in context of the article.
I think we both agree distrust doesn't require a universal underlying motivation but you're continuing to use "distrust" and "deep distrust" interchangeably without explaining why people should consider them interchangeable in context of the article.