Quoting the second tweet: >That's a choice Paul made. He CHOSE to stand behind a guy who signed his name to an entire book that dehumanizes his colleagues as a

Quoting the second tweet: >That's a choice Paul made. He CHOSE to stand behind a guy who signed his name to an entire book that dehumanizes his colleagues as a means of posturing. >He didn't need to do it. So why? >Paul wants impunity for guys like him, not shared dignity and decency for those in his field Paul could have easily done nothing, so it's worth thinking about why he chose to take action. I'm not saying the author is necessarily correct, but it's absolutely worth thinking about. This mode of analysis is useful in similar situations, always think about who benefits from a choice or endorsement.