I've seen a lot posts like this recently. This comment is coming from the perspective of someone who the author would consider "anti-social": I once reported my boss to HR for a racist remark, and then resigned in protest. By 2026 I have embraced being a somewhat Diogenesian outcast and progressive hall monitor. I lost friends over it.

So I find this post incredibly condescending, and it seems clearly directed at a few specific people this author had some sort of moral or political disagreement with. Which means the author is committing the exact sins he's inveighing against!

I will be a little more specific:

  assume they have no sane reason for doing or saying what they are doing or saying

Who exactly is assuming bad faith here? When I have a moral disagreement with someone it's rarely because they are ignorant or insane, it's because we have a fundamental difference in values. As a progressive, usually the person I disagree with is quite cynical and deeply rational. They might in good faith assume I am a bleeding heart who is also somewhat rational. Sometimes hearts are irreconcilable: a rich person I went to college with decided to become a for-profit landlord, so we aren't friends anymore. I simply think they're evil and won't associate with them. Stuff like that is always confusing and upsetting, often for both people involved; I am sure my landlord apostate friend didn't see what the big deal was. The author's "view from nowhere" posture is quite childish.

  assume intent is malicious, ignorant, or amoral.

This is followed immediately by the author assuming malicious ignorance! "do not challenge or acknowledge the existence or influence of your assumptions, wholly trust your intuition and feelings"

  interpret others' actions in the context of your fears

This is just pure sneering judgment. It doesn't mean anything, it's just name-calling. "People disagree with me because they're cowards!"

  exploit your immediate network; when the obvious merits of your narrative are exhausted, present like-minded people with tastefully curated details of your interactions with detractors, to provide a more appropriate account that your supporters can rally around to crush any lingering threats to your narrative

Again there seems to be some very specific baggage here! Did he get in a fight on Twitter or something? Anyway, "your supporters can rally around" contradicts these people being "anti-social" and "isolating." Perhaps there are a large number of people who disagree with the author's values, and that's what he's really upset about. But rather than say "people disagree with me and I can't convince them otherwise" he is content to say "people disagree with me because they're antisocial cowards." This is itself antisocial and cowardly, isn't it? I think the author should be concluding "getting in fights on Twitter is bad for human souls."

  do not grant grace to those who make mistakes, especially those that you have never met or otherwise spoken to

It does not seem like he is granting any of these anti-social people any grace, just a wall of unforgiving judgment. If they admit they are irrational weaklings then maybe the author will allow them a tiny helping of grace, as a treat.

  do not seek to understand those you do not already understand

Indeed I get the impression the author doesn't understand me at all, and has no interest in doing so. It's a lot easier to just conclude I am a stupid coward.

How to be anti-social – a guide to incoherent and isolating social experiences