There are more than two reasons that a link about Mill might have been posted. You've only mentioned two very pessimistic interpretations. I will grant that choosing the least pessimistic is a step in the right direction, but I want to point out this: there are many positive reasons why people value Mill. If you ask first, you might find them. You don't have to agree to ask. You can have a conversation without attacking.

So, please don't take this personally -- you can make your points without an attacking tone -- that's what I mean by aim higher. As in, strive to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps the irony here is that I may actually support many of the same causes as you. I've learned that using an abundance of grace when responding to people is not only kinder but leads to better outcomes. So, yes, I want to believe that you are capable of making a better, clearer, more persuasive claim.

For example, you could have written something like this: "Given this moment in the world, with a history of racism and abusive policing, with tragedy after tragedy, with a blatant lack of accountability, with with protests in the US, I am concerned that some people are grabbing onto concepts such as individual liberty without realizing that in the very founding of the US that rights come with responsibilities." You might add some quotes from Mill where he argues against narrowly individualistic misinterpretations of his philosophy.

> Aim higher with your dishonest intellectualism.

One definition of intellectualism is "the exercise of the intellect at the expense of the emotions."

Remember this: you don't know me. You assume a lot without asking questions. These issues are both emotional and intellectual to me. They work together.

All in all, I invite you to have a better conversation.

Oh, and I don't work in your little corporate world where people value "constructive" feedback. I don't value it because I don't value dishonesty. Aim higher with your connection to reality.