Apparently Helianthus think's PG should have both said nothing at all (eg, Because by engaging the toxic, he's cementing his role in the toxic.) and said something radical (the section of moderate feminists that are inherently sympathetic to YC; the concerns of those outside that layer, even the valid ones, are simply not important to PG)
Not entirely sure what the author thinks they are achieving.
Not both; either of those would have been more interesting and less prone to hypocrisy.
Perhaps I am less critical of Paul as much as I am the crude politics of it all--thus critical of Paul by extension.
(Before you think I am directly calling Paul a hypocrite, what I mean is that the toxic flame wars are, by their nature, hypocritical, and it takes care to interact with them without appearing hypocritical yourself--care that I do not think Paul managed.)
Not entirely sure what the author thinks they are achieving.