However, "Linus Torvalds is advocating for physical intimidation and violence." is something I just copied and pasted. I don't think it's that out of line to observe that this is an attempt to win the argument by defining Linus' behavior as intrinsically beyond the pale without having to engage it directly. It's not like that's a particular uncommon rhetorical tactic....
Neither does he. He's not creating a caricature, he's engaging the part of the argument that uses the same language on Linus that we normally reserve for wife beaters, child molesters and rapists. "Violence" and "abuse". It's not out of line to draw the parallel and question whether the language is appropriate for the situation, especially since the topic to begin with is language and it's appropriateness.
