Started out well, went completely off the rails during the gamergate discussion. This is because the author is anti-gamergate, and it shows. The bias here is sticky, definitely skip that part and instead do your own research about that period. The whole fiasco was filled with right and wrongs from both sides. There was no victor, only bitterness.
The rest of the piece reads like a naggy old man chastizing and fantasizing about his understanding of the “poor” left behinds. The tone changes from historial, to absolute opinion. I don’t like it.
Further down we see a resugrence of logic but it doesn’t knit well.
What I think is that 4chan is the bounce. 4chan is the place where nothing is sacred, ever, period. That is why liberals can’t understand it, liberals still hold certain values dear, and they are too attached to take a step back.
This is why Hillary isn’t demonize for naming and shaming. She should be. Anyone should. Name calling is toxic, period. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. If you find your writing is moving towards collectively calling a group a bad name, you have failed, and you are the problem.
If we want unity, which we do, we need to love each other. People are sad and hurting. We need to deal with that. This article seems to call those poor guys losers…often. Well that is the sad part of this article. They are not losers. They are humans.