I'm just trying to be neutral in all of this. If you look through that thread, the internet at large seems to be taking this as an opportunity to flex men's rights issues pretty heavily. The reason they're doing this seems to be because of the content of his writings rather than the fact that he got fired.
EDIT: Actually, it's unfair to say "the internet at large." HN, reddit, and twitter all seem to be taking the news in unique ways.
I appreciate that, but I don't think raising up some random guy on reddit is a valid way of drawing a conclusion.
Person A thinks X.
Person B who belongs a group the blue tribe hates also thinks X.
Therefore person A is a bad person because they agree with person B about X.
We have failed to prove that the group person B belongs to is actually bad and not just an exercise in signaling and we are also trying to smear person A by saying they agree with some other completely unrelated person who may belong to a distasteful group. Additionally X can still be correct and both people can be distasteful, but it wont change the fact that X is correct.
Sorry if I am not being clear, it's been a long day.