Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very typical kind of piece that starts with a self-evident, humble truism, i.e. "If you don't have anything to apologize for don't, if you do, apologize", and a Hamilton example to kind of obfuscate the tone and then the actual message comes when you bring in Andy Ngo and the 'far-left'. Even the beginning is silly. Bringing up the cultural revolution followed by "obviously I don't intend to compare anything t…
> Bringing up the cultural revolution followed by "obviously I don't intend to compare anything to the cultural revolution". Okay, then what's the point? He does not say that.
This is the paragraph that Barrin92 is trying to missrepresent.
> Let me be clear: The horror of Mao’s China was singular. I am not making a comparison to the death and destruction it caused or to the severity of the punishment that the mobs imposed. Instead, I am drawing a parallel (one that various journalists and commentators, including the pseudonymous Chinese-American academic, Xiao Li, have made before) to an instinct—the inclination to humiliate and terrorize