[clin_]

This is largely academic posturing, which is the case with a lot of critical theory. Pinker makes it clear throughout Better Angels that his working definition of violence is limited to the physical kind. He's also adamant that his choice of topic is not an endorsement of any specific moral hierarchy, and if you read the book, you would know the tone is not entirely self-congratulatory, but often somber and introspective.

What this article claims is Pinker's "exercise of circularity" slash discursive violence is merely a sin of omission: because Pinker chose not to make his book about modern problems, the author jumps to the conclusion that he is partly responsible for these problems.

By this logic: Yesterday I didn't have a single conversation about inequality or racism—I guess that makes me complicit! That strikes me as kind of absurd, I don't know about anyone else.