Several others are saying this is a great article ... but i think it's terrible, Awful with a capital 'A'. It begins by seeming to warm up to the idea that Scott Aaronson might have made a valuable contribution and provided some useful insight in his blog -- and then throws it all overboard. Chu invents a false equivalence in Aaronson's blog post and uses it to shift focus by way of gamerghazi of all things to other problems -- sexual violence etc.

Compare Aaronson's:

And no, I’m not even suggesting to equate the ~15 years of crippling, life-destroying anxiety I went through with the trauma of a sexual assault victim. The two are incomparable; they’re horrible in different ways.

with Chu's

And Scott, and his commenters, are treating the two as worthy of equivalent degrees of scrutiny.

If I'm reading this right, it paraphrases as

I'm not saying he means they're equivalent, but he means they're equivalent.

If I'm reading the whole article right, it in turn paraphrases as

I'm not saying that the problems of your circumstantially nerdy, white, lonely and male past are unimportant and possibly impertinent, but they are unimportant and possibly impertinent.

Aaronson's post gives -- I believe -- some (obligatory: some but not all) good insight into what makes eg. /r/mensrights tick. Necessary ingredients, at least in Aaronson's case, seem to be: stories of sexual victims and aggressors, and an introvert who identifies with the aggressor of the story but who also does not see the violence in their everyday. But Chu's article provides another critical ingredient, if unintentionally: these are men who often believe themselves to be ignored, discounted and excluded in the context of a perceived orthodoxy that stresses the importance of openness, inclusion and expression -- and here Chu tells Aaronson-of-the-Past "it's all in your head, make yourself better so that you can focus on real problems, the kind that other, female people have."

I'm worried that Aaronson's post is being misappropriated. I don't think it was meant as an explanation of the psychology of the proverbial person with a fedora who also hates feminism and women. After all, the death threats and swatting etc. are obviously indefensible, to say nothing of sexual violence irl, so if Aaronson's post is an explanation of the psychology and also asks for some change in the narrative for given consideration of those explained, then the request is probably not considering, right?