I think it's more “when he is consciously lying to advance political propaganda and needs to avoid engaging at anything more than a general level to avoid immediately giving the game away, his prose becomes less interesting.“
His classic piece “The Submarine” is negative on its subject, but it's quite engaging and not evasive the way this piece is. And there is a reason for that.
We probably agree on the substance of the piece, but that aside: there are people who write bad takes on this stuff that clearly enjoy the writing (Matt Taibbi is a classic example). Paul Graham isn't one of them. I wonder why he bothers: he's exactly the least persuasive kind of person to take the "cancel culture is a problem" side of the argument, and the process doesn't seem pleasant for him.
This would be a convincing argument if it was extended with links to people who have written about "cancel culture", "wokeness" or whatever in a genuinely pleasant way, even and perhaps especially to criticize it. Maybe "Scott Alexander" of Slate Star Codex got closest, but even he reportedly regrets much of that writing - i.e. it does make him unhappy, which I think speaks volumes. I don't think it's realistic or fair to demand this feat from Paul Graham.
I'd look for someone writing from the perspective of "all humans are innately predisposed to prejudice and must work to overcome it", which avoids dividing up the world into "x-ist people / not-x-ist people".
I don't hold out hope that this perspective will ever become mainstream, but because it's an alternative to "us-vs-them", there's more opportunity for redemption, communion, and joy.
> all humans are innately predisposed to prejudice and must work to overcome it
Much of "Scott Alexander"'s following came from the readership of a blog named literally 'Overcoming Bias', that's devoted to descriptions of how all humans are often remarkably petty and prejudicial in obscure and counterintuitive ways. It's definitely not taking a mainstream perspective, and the 'redemption' in it is quite subdued, but it does seem to avoid that particular pitfall.
I agree; I am saying that this is a mode where Graham doesn't write well, not that it is impossible to write engaging badly-detached-from-facts propaganda.
Though Taibbi writes for a different audience that probably makes that easier.
I presume you refer to the avoidance of examples in the article. Your comment suggest he was correct to do so. Some people will be desperate to disprove that modern heresy exists, and highlighting forbidden opinions would help negate the entire article.
It's a piece about identifying 'PR hits' that misidentified something as a 'PR hit'. There's a microscopic 'correction' at the bottom but the fact the correction undermines the premise of the piece - that you too can learn to identify 'PR hits' from Paul Graham - is just ignored.
> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here. Partly because one of the universal tactics of heretic hunters, now as in the past, is to accuse those who disapprove of the way in which they suppress ideas of being heretics themselves. Indeed, this tactic is so consistent that you could use it as a way of detecting witch hunts in any era
Talking about PR[1] isn't wrought with intellectually-dishonest landmines in the manner that it is for talking about what Graham terms "heresy-hunters". This is also obvious to even anyone who's paying a mild amount of attention to the cultural changes he's describing.
[1] the topic of "The Submarine", for those who are unfamiliar
I wrote a comment here about how the term "heresy hunter" is a good example of what I'm talking about, bad writing because "heresy hunting" is a clunky made-up term, and there are much better, more vivid words to use instead. But, it turns out, there is a lot of writing about "heresy hunting" out on the Internet --- in Evangelical Christian theology. Maybe that's what happened? Maybe Graham is born again?
I chose that term carefully, and put it in quotes, to avoid derailment about my choice of words. I wanted to make it clear I'm referring without judgment to the types of people he is talking about, and was willing to make my short comment clunkier in the name of keeping it precise.
But the clunkiness you're saying is in my comment, not his essay. The essay includes the words "heretic hunters", but it's only used once:
> I've deliberately avoided mentioning any specific heresies here. Partly because one of the universal tactics of heretic hunters, now as in the past, is to accuse those who disapprove of the way in which they suppress ideas of being heretics themselves. Indeed, this tactic is so consistent that you could use it as a way of detecting witch hunts in any era
Personally, this single usage and less-clunky grammar doesn't strike me as especially bad writing.
You're hinting that most accusations of heresy come from the right (evangelical christians), rather than the left. This almost seems absurd to me, as someone who consumes a wide range of news media every day.
His classic piece “The Submarine” is negative on its subject, but it's quite engaging and not evasive the way this piece is. And there is a reason for that.