I didn't read it that way (but I can see multiple possible readings).

Here's my interpretation: When someone has a shitty public opionion, we force others to MAKE PUBLIC their opinions.

And because our society is so polarized, we don't talk about opinions or their nuances; we reduce them to binary views (it's possible they are but not always), we pick a side and we light our torches.

This thread reads as an example of anything BUT plurality of opinion -- most of the people here never in their lives considered that the country in question has political discourse at all, and what's going on in there politically, so no opinion was ever present.

Furthermore, consider that the opinion-like discourse is clearly performative. We all know what the correct virtue signaling looks like, and we know that we need to ruin every person not doing the correct virtue signaling.

So it's less of a plurality-of-opinion situation, and more of a direct-democracy situation: a lynch mob.

(Not saying it's good or bad btw -- not my circus, not my monkeys. Just dishonest to say we love some sort of plurality while doing this I think.)