It's interesting because I, as many who probably won't admit (and others who will) found no issue whatsoever seeing the exact, spot-on point he was making each time. Perhaps you as others are so far removed from the things he was saying that they seemed virtual, as if from another world, or even, empty. That the separation is so fundamental, it's almost like he was talking in a different tongue, a different language to you. When his posts felt totally obvious to others, although well written, who could easily pick up on them and add layers of tangible hard examples and further points to the fundamental problems he was stating.
There's also the fact that for one post he wrote about a topic, he'd receive about two or three ad hominem personal attacks. By the time he was done defending himself, which every man has the right to when gratuitously attacked, he was even further seen as the guy always playing the victim; when in reality, and I assure you it was very clear and obvious for an outsider looking in, he was just stating his opinions as everybody else was. The only difference was he was telling the ugly truth, or at least attempting to uncover the uglier truths, and everybody else was busy virtue-signaling and flocking together, feeling stronger as many, and perpetuating demagogue rhetoric as retort, but doing it while knowing they'd always, always get the utter support from the community, as a risk-free option.
The very fact he apparently got perma-banned is classic evidence of the sort of opposition he was running into:
state your opinion as long as it's cute and acceptable by the majority. State your opinion that is off-track, and you'll get attacked. State too many such opinions and you'll be censored. .. ... PERMANENTLY.
If anyone can point out the post that got him thrown out permanently, I'd be glad to have a look only to find there wasn't anything disturbing or all that reprehensible objectively
