Two people that come to mind that have an even larger following than him are Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder. His writing style reminds me of theirs, and I believe neither of these 3 bring good to this world with their ideas.

The basis of his argument is mostly correct, but have you ever seen people try to debate Shapiro and Crowder? They have their facts and justifications down better than most. It’s the interpretation that matters — the global conclusion that is drawn from their exploration of facts. And the case of this author, its really just complaining. He blames groups based on their geological location, gender, and race when those factors have nothing to do with why the world is the way it is. He asks companies to give up their proprietary technology (rather, decries the world around them for not forcing them to do so) in the name of preventing tens of millions of deaths, but truly he knows nothing more than you or I do about the social and political factors necessary to actually accomplish that. And not once does he consider qualifying his argument by actually considering why a company shouldn’t open-source its scientific discoveries, or why political leaders may not have the option to just swoop in and save other countries.

Notice I’m not here to give a counterargument that is any better than his. But I do choose to differentiate myself from him in two ways: One, I will not speak down to others except when I know who they are and what they have said, and two, I refuse to subscribe to ideological thinking about massive issues when I don’t have time to explore all the necessary details.