You as pg's wife have vested interest in pg's reputation as your well-being is intrinsically tied with his reputation and well-being through marriage. Your words are not totally empty though as it is still supporting evidence, it is just not solid evidence and it is not something I will totally accept, unlike the op.
The probability for this essay to pop-up right after PG started a fire with his economic essay is just to small for there to be no connection. Could be, that this essay is in itself bullshit. People lie to themselves to hide truths that are painful but self evident. I think this essay could be such a lie.
I am no fan of pg's worldview but I think there are less conspiratorial and more good-faith ways to attack it. I genuinely accept what jl said, but even if I didn't this just isn't a point worth pressing (unlike, oh, "you have presented no evidence that increasing economic inequality is inherently necessary to the social good which you wish to do, as opposed to simply a convenient approach with externalities you could avoid but don't care to"). Whether or not this essay is self-deception, if he does not believe that it is and cannot be convinced that it is, there's nothing productive in arguing further and certainly nothing productive in doing so aggressively.
Sure. What is productive or nonproductive is your opinion and I can partly agree with your opinion. However, I'm not on HN to be productive (who is?). I'm just here to introduce my thoughts in a way that I perceive logical.
Also please note that although I was obviously disagreeing with paul on economic inequality I was not explicitly debating the topic. I was simply pointing out potential bias of a post made by a biased source and the possible validity that this recent essay was in response to the backlash caused by pg's economic article.
Additionally, I spent deliberate effort to craft my post in a way to avoid aggression as much as possible. I specifically stated that jl's statement can be classified as supporting evidence but it's still biased evidence and that it needs to be taken into account.
>I am no fan of pg's worldview but I think there are less conspiratorial and more good-faith ways to attack it
Your OP was a conspiratorial attack. I am just defending your original opinion.
The probability for this essay to pop-up right after PG started a fire with his economic essay is just to small for there to be no connection. Could be, that this essay is in itself bullshit. People lie to themselves to hide truths that are painful but self evident. I think this essay could be such a lie.