How's that? The point being made here is that he is used to people in his position in society having a certain freedom from criticism, and therefore sees any vulnerability to criticism as a loss of freedom. This is an equally valid point whether the commenter is white or black, man or woman, old or young.
White people articulating what they view as universal principles is vastly preferable to the current trend of white people complaining about other white people and speaking on behalf of minorities.
Can't you see the irony of your statement accusing PG of not tolerating criticism on his business' online public forum and under the topic of one of his essays and with a thread headed by your unequivocal rejection of his views on the issue at hand?
I sincerely can't see your conclusion about the immunity from criticism that PG purportedly enjoys in all of this and that's the root cause of his disapproval and denouncement of cancel culture.
Your wording is a bit odd, so let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
You feel that it's ironic that, on a post about how Graham doesn't like it when people like him are criticized in specific,
I criticized him, and told someone else that their particular criticism - one which is completely different from that which Graham is discussing - doesn't make sense?
> your conclusion about the immunity from criticism that PG purportedly enjoys
Not "PG ... enjoys"; a kind of immunity that people _like_ Graham _used to_ enjoy. That I can call him a dickhead on the internet with no repercussions is exactly what he doesn't like.
> cancel culture
Saying I don't agree with an essay on HackerNews is not "cancel culture."
Instead of debating whether PG tolerates criticism for his views, now it's whether he likes it or not, and instead of whether he enjoys immunity from criticism or not, now it used to be the case in the past but not anymore.
In the spirit of good debate, I will concede on the latter and conclude with the advent of social media, this renders it a moot point but on the former we can attest that he got a thick skin and can take a lot of hits from critics, don't you agree?
Now to the strawman, his central thesis boils down to this; people shouldn't lose their jobs merely for expressing their views, and to show some leniency and consideration for people's personal circumstances and track record of past good deeds when found guilty by the vindictive justice championed by the online mob and not to throw the baby with the bathwater.
No, and indeed in the root comment I expressed that. My beef is with his lack of critical thinking in the application of his abstract analysis, and with his complete rejection of the idea that people he agrees with politically might be guilty of the same thing at the moment.
1- You think that his writings are too abstract for you and not grounded more in the sociocultural realities of today's America, right?
2. Seriously, I don't know who his associates are or his political orientation is (right or left), I just happen to agree with his thesis outlined in this essay and probably would disapprove of some of his past/future views if I happen to find them unreasonable, that's all.
