I think the kind of critique here is subconsciously and pedantically picking up on general tone and perceived lack of authenticity. PG went on the defensive --

I think the kind of critique here is subconsciously and pedantically picking up on general tone and perceived lack of authenticity. PG went on the defensive -- and attempted to dispel critiques with a negative attitude and a logical argument. This isn't a problem you can logic away. What he needed to do was write from the perspective of social conscience, even if it's not logical, even if it's not strictly absolutely statistically true. He needed to prove that he is coming from a genuinely positive point of view, so that we can see that his great influence is not aimed simply toward the neutral or equal, but in fact good. He failed to do this, and therefore he receives criticism. The arguments against him are focused on the wrong things, because they're not very self-aware, but they're fundamentally correct in the big picture. There's a difference between simple absence of evil, tactless neutrality, and genuine good. We like to hope our idols and influences are as far toward the good as possible.