> Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? My mistake. I wished to say that he isn’t so universally admirable. That is, what you see as constr

> Where did I say say his optimism was universally admired? My mistake. I wished to say that he isn’t so universally admirable. That is, what you see as constructive in his ideals and aspirations, other people today might find destructive. > That may well be true, but this feels like an ad-hominem argument Well, human beings are social animals, so ad hominem arguments are perfectly valid here. If something feels cringe to a large group of people (even to most of those who one would have expected to be sympathetic), then it can fairly be called cringe. Also, these idealistic, Zamenhof-lauding green-star-flag-waving world-peace types were infamous for often having the least ability to actually converse in Esperanto. They would be visible at congresses, but in a way they were least involved in the actual Esperanto community. You'll also find plenty of arguments that those people actually hold Esperanto back from appealing to outsiders and getting more people involved.