Ironically, there was a recent astral codex article about how much writings sucks and becomes useless when you have to appeal to too many stakeholders by constantly re-stating the obvious to keep everyone happy.
Journalists, anthropologists, and plenty of others strive towards rhetorical neutrality intentionally, and just as someone can be a citizen scientist, someone could also be a citizen journalist or anthropologist.
And furthermore it just isn't any of your business anyhow. What you are talking about is the equivalent of worrying about thoughtcrime. No objective harm was done but you worry that someone secretly holds an opposing viewpoint.
And no, it’s not “thoughtcrime” to form an opinion about a person based on things they’ve written.
I shouldn't be surprised if people react in a paranoid or irrational manner, no. But I would hope that they would hold themselves to a higher standard.
In this case we are talking about a very humane and nuanced thinker, and under normal circumstances we should in fact withhold insinuation of malice unless evidence exists. It is called the principle of charity.
But again, there’s nothing abnormal or “paranoid” about inferring someone’s intentions from their writing. You’ve done it yourself, which is why you described him as “humane”. Why shouldn't others be able to arrive at different conclusions?
Because the entire point of attempting to force one to take a stance is to further whatever the narrative may be, or to cancel counter narratives. There is no other point. There’s nothing wrong with arriving at your own conclusion but stop there if you don’t agree. Don’t cancel, dox, or otherwise force their opinion to match yours.