[wellpast]

To the ‘ad hominem fallacy’ people: the opening paragraph states its entire motivation and thesis: Pg’s recent ‘reactionary’ political views and then purports to figure this out.

Then it mentions nothing more about said views instead - yes - launching into an ornate argument about PG’s technical ideas from a decade ago to conclude that PG is an ‘unserious intellectual’, with the hope that its original thesis has been settled.

That’s ad hominem - don’t be fooled by the bloated, foot-noted middle.