Are you sure?

You linked to two other posts where you argued directly with other people's positions.

But you didn't, predominantly, argue against Jgln's positions--you argued against Tate but also explained how his position might feel appealing to some, and then made a parallel to Jgln. How do you know that "insinuiating that a Medium writer is morally equivalent to a public figure that you call out as loathsome albeit understandably so" was not always over the line of acceptability?

(Histrionic comparisons to, say, Hitler are in a different category because people interpret them as histrionic, not literal. But Tate hasn't yet reached the august status of epitome of evil, so when you say Tate is the symptom of the problem...but so is Jgln, nothing buffers the weight of the moral equivalency.)

You might be right that the line has changed. But the evidence you've presented isn't very good. You haven't shown anything that wouldn't be consistent with the alternative interpretation of, "The problem with this line is that I never waddled over it before."