It certainly doesn't seem like a radical idea. Most of the responses started out with some variation of "well, we didn't mean literally all income inequality is

It certainly doesn't seem like a radical idea. Most of the responses started out with some variation of "well, we didn't mean literally all income inequality is bad. Obviously some income inequality is good. We just have too much. No one actually wants perfect income equality. pg is arguing against a strawman". In that sense, he successfully pointed out that the shorthand phrase "income inequality" causes equivocation when taken literally, where both sides of it are using to mean different things. Unfortunately, most of the responses never made it much past identifying this confusion between the literal meaning of income inequality and what they meant, by saying we have "too much" income inequality. This is a tautology, and most responses failed to address the important question of "how much is too much?". Most responses instead then focused on inventing or imagining a lot of things pg didn't say, things they thought he might be implying. pg responds by simplifying his essay, so that there is less stuff to read into it. People still try to read too much into it. pg gives up at responding to things he didn't say, no time for BS. I think he added to the conversation a good point, that many people are sloppy when they refer to income inequality, and that it is not all bad, and that we need to be more precise when we talk about what the real problems are. However, people mostly ignored that...despite actually agreeing with what he actually said, they wanted to disagree with what they thought he said...