The parent comment is a good representative of the non-communication sort of dismissive attack which Sam and others are rebelling against.

At a meta level it ignores the question of "Why is Sam pursuing this conversation?" (the stop digging part which refers to the adage, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.") which implies that Sam is in a hole of his own making, in which 'hole' is considered a bad thing.

Coupled with the "too wealthy for someone to take you aside" which implies either that no one would risk offending Sam by disagreeing with him like the parent does, or that those who associate with Sam (and associates were clearly targeted in the various twitter tirades)

Combined, this is exactly the sort of dismissive comment that seeks to shut down conversation rather than encourage it.

Overall I see so little respect, and so much vitriol, that I wonder if maybe people are parodying the exact sort of behavior that Sam is complaining about or if they even recognize their own patterns.

When someone says something that sounds to the listener as wrong or stupid or elitist or any number of negative things, is that the speaker's issue or the listener's issue? And when the listener is dismissive they unilaterally give up their opportunity to understand do they not?

After Charlottesville there were a number of journalists that went out and talked with people in various groups who were espousing racist points of view. What I found interesting was that of all the people they talked with and I got a chance to see or read, only two 'types' seemed to be there, one was a follower type person who was feeling threatened in their own life and had externalized that fear/threat as as anger/hate against an identifiable group. And the other were the leader type people who really didn't seem to be invested on way or the other but they could use that fear to get people to do things that advanced their own agenda of acquiring power.

There was an article on HN recently that humans are wired to think in Us vs Them modalities. No doubt it helped us survive in tribes, but we have to set that aside if we want to address the core of the problem, and sometimes if we even want to know what the problem really is!

It is very enlightening to hear the stories of "former" racists for this reason. Many that I have heard started with someone listening to the rhetoric of an agitator 'leader type' person who would craft a narrative that this future follower's problems were the result of these 'others'. And call upon their membership in the group of 'Us' to help stop the influence of 'Them'.

We see this pattern raging rampant in national discourse and local discourse, whether it is races, political party, political ideology, or wealth disparity. And too often that rhetoric is portrayed as the conversation but it isn't. It is the emotion, it is not the issue.

People who are unable to move ahead in their personal economic growth see people who appear to be effortlessly becoming wealthier and the emotion is to hate those people. The issue is structural barriers that maintain high levels of wealth inequality. People who feel their financial security is under attack by the perception that those who would take it from them would give it to people unwilling to work as hard as they do. People use strong emotions to shut down conversations, sometimes intentionally and some times not, but the outcome is the same. Something along "We don't talk about that because it just gets everyone all upset."

And I think that is exactly what Sam was trying to say, which was "getting everyone all upset" is not a useful reason for not talking about a particular topic. You need to look that emotion as a signal that the topic is important. If you ignore these important topics they fester and they explode. Whether it is in divorce or in elections where the very fabric of the government is challenged to respond. And by talking about the topic, you can search for the issue behind the emotion and address it.