This is a really good point. It's frustrating, though predictable, to see people arguing about the precise threshold of "harm" to which speech should be held in the comments here when the harm done to most people Graham seems to be defending amounts to "someone was mean to me on the Internet."

And - yeah! That sucks! People being mean to you on the internet sucks. But until people like this are defending every target of KF/ED/4chan/etc hate mobs just as vehemently, I'm not really interested in treating them like they're neutral, rational parties.

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 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.

Is this really objectionable in your opinion?

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.

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.