I'm baffled by the claim that tech oligarchs are bad readers, as opposed to getting the point but disagreeing.

Some authors seem to think that readers may only read Heinlein if they are prepared to join the army the next day or renounce their citizenship.

Think about it from the POV of psychology and it will make more sense. She thinks she deserves more status than she has. Other people have more status than her. She doesn't like this, so she smears their reputation to reduce that gap.

Look at the arguments. They are all over the place, and almost schizophrenic. There is a lot of reaching and pulling of narratives from individual quotes. When someone is selling you something, its probably best to ignore any sort of deeper meaning in what they are saying. They are selling you something, full stop. Anything else you are reading into what they are saying is pure projection. They will say whatever they think will get you to buy. There is no deeper meaning. People with actual life experience know this. Somehow, she doesn't. The executives will say whatever they have to to get you to buy.

>Some authors seem to think that readers may only read Heinlein if they are prepared to join the army the next day or renounce their citizenship.

I am kinda tired of those [expletive]. Paul Verhoeven the first in line.

Heinlein's thesis was that power unearned is power abused. And since voting is gifted power - people abuse it. Heinlein's idea that the only way to earn the franchise is to first serve the society may be wrong, but no one engages with its bigger idea - that the franchise must be earned. And it is true - people will gladly vote hitler and hamas into power. They will vote on tribal, ethnic, cultural and religious lines. They will vote to troll.

What people rarely vote for is the best interests of themselves or their nation.