eleven years later, you respond to my comment.

[kadioguy]

From the comments section of a YouTube video:

11 years later, you respond to my comment.
---
Me: Why is "respond" in the present tense rather than the past tense?

Friend: I think it's because from cssleprechaun's perspective it is indeed a present situation. He's not describing something that happened sometime in the past but rather something that just happened.

Me: When something just happened, can we use the present tense instead of the past tense?

Friend: Hmm, this topic confuses me a little bit. There are reasons for me to believe this YT reply is correct just as there are reasons to believe it's incorrect.

On one hand I've never actually read in any grammar book that you can use present simple to describe something that just happened. For that, more appropriate would be present perfect.

On the other hand it doesn't sound that wrong and I can imagine some other scenarios where that would be used, for example: You have betrayed me, yet you come here and ask me for money. <-- I believe it's a grammatically correct sentence.

In the sentence I gave, just like in the sentence from YT, the sender is not just talking about some situation, but he is describing it to add a little bit of drama and formality to it.

Generally, in some cases you can switch between present simple (to sound more distant and formal) or present continuous (to sound more emotional and empathetic). Anyway, that's what I think about it. Take it with a grain of salt, because I'm just a fellow English learner.
---
I agree with the friend, but I'd also like to hear your opinion.

 

[emsr2d2]

As it is in this case, it's commonly used in a sarcastic or slightly irritated way. (You can see that the person who wrote that comment followed it with "lmao", indicating their amusement with the slight ridiculousness of the situation.

Helen: Here's the book I said I'd lend you.
John: Oh great. I needed it six months ago and now you give it to me!!

Tim: Will you marry me?
Paul: No.
Tim (six months later): Will you marry me?
Paul: No.
Tim (a year later): Will you marry me?
Paul: No.
Paul (another year later): Will you marry me, Tim?
Tim: What? Two and a half years after I first ask you, you ask me! Forget it!

 

[kadioguy]

Tim: What? Two and a half years after I first ask you, you ask me! Forget it!

Did you mean to write asked?

 

[emsr2d2]

Did you mean to write asked?

No. We sometimes put whole sentences in the present even if they happened in the past. In published writing (fiction or non-fiction) this is sometimes called the "historical present".
The second "ask" is the use of the present tense that we're currently discussing.

Tim might also have said "Typical! I ask you three times if you'll marry me. Three times you turn me down. Now you ask me!" The first askings and the turning down all took place in the past but they're perfectly natural in the present tense in this context.

 

[kadioguy]

Tim: What? Two and a half years after I first ask you, you ask me! Forget it!

I highlighted the first 'ask' because 'first ask' looked to me like it happened two and a half years before the second 'ask', so I wondered why it was in the present tense.

No. We sometimes put whole sentences in the present even if they happened in the past. In published writing (fiction or non-fiction) this is sometimes called the "historical present".
The second "ask" is the use of the present tense that we're currently discussing.

Now I know that the whole thing is in the historical present, so it is okay to say Two and a half years after I first ask [present tense] you, you ask [present tense] me! Forget it!

I hope I have understood that.

PS - It looks like what my friend said (in #1) is correct. They have the same opinion as you.