Couldn't disagree with this more. There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation. PG is making the fundamental attribution error here.
Only the most cursory glance could imply that haters are never successful. If you followed individual haters, you'd likely find many of them grew up and stopped shitposting on Twitter.
"Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom."
I believe it is related to de-personification on the Internet (or otherwise written content). In a smaller community, such would not happen.
I also wonder what would happen to the amount of haters if there were no fanboys at all. In a way, they balance each other out.
As for why famous people? Famous means influence. Whenever a non-famous people gets criticized it won't be read much. Doesn't mean it does not happen.
> There are innumerable examples of toxic people turning things around in a different situation.
Could also say in a different way that PG has zero data on whether this is true or not. It's an essay and an opinion and is as likely to be correct as my first paragraph.
Edit: if you define "impressive" as "something a hater could not do" and "not impressive" as notorious things haters do, then I understand downvoting this comment. But that's begging the question.
down-voters should interpret impressive as "making an impression" not "something really good"