This case was based on: "We should pity David Brooks, because he is not getting laid. And he is slowly losing his sanity."
The author is free to write that. But I'm not going to spread the link.
Ah, well I was commenting on the portion shown above. Taken in your expanded context, it's not something I would endorse. That said, I still stand by my (revised) point, regardless of whether it was brought about by a poor example, which is that a witty evisceration of an argument or point of view can be very satisfying.
The thread starter's point (which I tend to agree with) was specifically that this particular article was ad-hominem and mean.
But my comment wasn't meant to be a continuation of that discussion, but a digression. A poor choice for one though, as is obvious now.
To clarify my earlier point, there are few things as satisfying to read as a witty evisceration of an argument or stance. For a public persona, I don't see much problem with applying it to their wider body of work as long as you think the criticism applies well overall. My earlier statement was fairly ambiguous in this respect.