There is so much truth in this: "Quote the specific passages you disagree with. This forces you to calibrate your mental model of what someone said with what they actually said."
Everyone is quoting pg's passage "So you could for example have no poverty and perfect social mobility, and still have great economic inequality." That's true, in the abstract--but it's so far from the reality of US society today that it makes the whole essay tone deaf: "let them eat cake." pg could have written an essay saying "poverty and poor social mobility are the real scourges, here's how we could fix them." Instead he wrote a defense of inequality, and wonders why there's blowback.
pg has a bit of a blind spot about this "quote a specific passage" business. idlewords wrote a brutal evisceration of "Hackers and Painters" called "Dabblers and Blowhards": http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm And here is pg, 8 years ago, demanding someone point out which specific passage was refuted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=238325
There's no way people have missed that he doesn't think economic inequality and poverty are synonymous (I kind of feel sorry for him because he sort of has to give them the benefit of the doubt and keep going as if they're just mistaken), it's a core point in his original argument, which means they're apparently fine taking him and effectively throwing him under the bus by making it sound like he's pro poverty.
I'd love to see a reply to him that's intellectually honest and stays on point. Rebuts his arguments, doesn't put words in to his mouth, and acknowledges those that have already come out of it. Sadly amongst the pile I've read, none seem to have tried to do that and instead seem to just be aiming for audience approval with emotional statements.