My issue with this being I think the GP in its last sentence completely negates its otherwise decent analysis by giving an example not of someone "taken down to

My issue with this being I think the GP in its last sentence completely negates its otherwise decent analysis by giving an example not of someone "taken down to earth" or similar by "reasonable" hating, gossip or what you will, but instead having their words spun out of proportion to where something qualified several times over gets remembered as a blanket statement. Even if it fits your morals that they deserved as much, it can't be said to be true, so you'd have to posit truthiness is somehow good. Which I think is real bad. It makes very little sense to me. Almost reads like a joke. Edit: shit I'm dumb