I'm not going to word this well at all, but have you noticed multiple posters attitudes/reactions toward you (and townie) have changed recently? I like both of you a lot and I think we agree on the vast majority of stuff, but I've felt myself wanting to push back against you and defend Pete (which certainly feels weird). When I think about it, first I'm bummed because again, why do I feel like I want to argue with people I like and agree with. But I think it's because there is a perception that you are being unreasonable, or at least disproportionate, with some of these attacks. Maybe it's just the framing or whatever, but some of it feels more tribal than actual good faith or fact based, reasoned arguments. Like assuming a guy does is scummy or unethical without evidence because of a job he had out of school. Or calling a guy a republican when there is such a giant chasm between him and any GOP policy. Those are just bad, unconvincing arguments. I sort of expect it from MHB, he's shown he's not particularly interested in discussed policy or real solutions. But not you guys.
And it feels a bit asymmetric too (at least from the reasonable posters). Like I think Bernie is dead wrong about nuclear, and therefore don't love his climate plan. But I think he's a good dude trying to do his best to do what he think is right, I'm not fundamentally questioning his motives or what kind of person he is without good evidence. By all means call out Pete because you believe his arguments are wrong. But this this GOP operative, Mckinsey scum, purity test stuff all feels a little gross to me.