> without merely dismissing the whole site as toxic on twitter.
You are aware that he's not, not by a long shot, the first to have that opinion? There's _way_ more than an element of truth in it.
Maybe I just have a high bar for what qualifies as toxic, but most of the thread seemed to be a reasonable discussion of what had happened.
Obviously some people have made some incorrect assumptions at varying points, but I haven't seen anything that would remotely qualify as toxic.
I don't expect him to engage at all. I do think he should be able to handle dissenting opinions without merely dismissing the whole site as toxic on twitter.