Well, I do call that out (especially the worse versions, not the I-imagine-this-is-a-dogwhistle-for-worse-sentiments thing) when I run into them. But I do admit--and I should strive harder to resist this--that my activity is sculpted in large part by what Medium's algorithms choose to show me. Furthermore, I don't see much need to pile on; I am much more likely to comment when it seems that something important has been missed than when a point is already made. If the point's already there, I just upvote it.

But you're doing the attacking-people thing here, too: "When you actively try to stop us from attacking Kane...".

Kane is, presumably, a human being, with cares and feelings and loves and hates and so on just like anyone else. If he has bad ideas (and he clearly has some, even if it's not so clear how many and how bad, from what you wrote--I haven't bothered investigating beyond what you wrote about him) do we write him off as a bad human being, or do we write off his ideas as bad ideas?

If the ideas endanger people, and ideas often do, do we protect people more effectively by going after ideas, or by going after the people who hold them? Note that ideas can spread or go out of favor; people remain people.

I'm completely supportive of going after Kane's bad ideas (e.g. there's clearly something amiss with some sort of overly strong gender-essentialism idea somewhere in there), but if someone else speaks them more clearly and with greater reach than he does, my inclination would be to spend more effort on the higher-profile, more-convincing spokesperson.