One thing it makes me think of is, like… I think one of the most important lessons I learned from my time on Twitter, which is probably a lesson some of these people have yet to learn, is to just say less on matters I don’t know enough about. Twitter kinda pushed me materially to learn that lesson because if I mouthed off too ignorantly, I could get steamrolled and humiliated, which wasn’t exactly fun. On top of that, reading up on “no investigation, no right to speak” hit home for me the importance of understanding rather than trying to invent narrative out of thin air.

In particular, the comment with the person who admitted at the end to have had a fried brain and misread is what made me think of it. Had that person taken a moment to process and consider before reacting, they probably wouldn’t have said what they did in the first place.

Another important lesson has been internalizing how context can be more important than universalized principles. I think this is something I’ve internalized largely as a result of having to contend with “critical support” of nations and peoples whose cause is overall just, but whose cultural beliefs or practices are not something I seem to be very aligned with. So how this relates: with the second comment you linked, they appear to be trying to force universal principle over context and in the process, are dismissing important history just to insist on some pet peeve about phrasing. It seems to me that it is the same kind of thinking that would have an atheist “leftist” rejecting Iran because of its religiosity, while ignoring the importance of its anti-imperialism and self-determination; in this case, rejecting the whole of a historical piece because a single aspect of it steps outside what they deem okay.